Delingpole: Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History

From Breitbart

by James Delingpole 8 Mar 2020

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.

But the kind of intolerant leftists who tend to edit Wikipedia pages don’t want you to know this.

Their archived debate as to whether the ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’ offers a fascinating, if not exactly surprising, insight into their mindset.

The editors variously refer to these often eminent scientists as “cranks” and “a club of fools”.

One says:

Cranks are well-known to maintain such lists of authoritative-sounding people to bolster their own legitimacy, and this list is just another in this genre. Long past time to kill it.

Another says:

The list is synthesis to mislead the reader into thinking there is significant doubt about the reality of global warming.

This one really, really fancies himself. His contribution is probably best read in the voice of Comic Book Guy from The Simpsons, whom I’d also guess he physically resembles:

Even ten years ago it was clear to me and others that this article had become a badly written nexus of non-notable fringe theories and advocacy for religious points of view. Ten years on, a dozen scientists formerly denying climate change have died. Outside of another dozen die-hards in the United States, virtually no credentialed scientist does not think that climate change is man-made and will, on the whole, have deleterious effects on us and our world. As a scientific community, we also have much more information and data, and the consensus has gotten stronger (close to 99.9 % of scientists agree) as the obituary pages continue to publish the memorials to those who disagree with scientific consensus. Everyone has moved on with their lives. In the meanwhile, I’ve earned a master’s of art in teaching secondary science. I still find students who don’t believe in evolution, and in some quarters, natural selection remains controversial, but absolutely nobody — not teachers, not students, not scholars — seriously denies climate change any more. A list that purports to list the dozen or so people who still deny it to their grave is shrinking each day, and is an example of fraudulently spreading doubt and uncertainty, as noted by Johnuniq. At some time in the past ten years, climate change denial-ism has become the next alchemy, ether, and astronomy. Sure there are a handful of believers in this, Area 51, cold fusion, Occultism in Nazism, AIDS denialism, and the Age of Aquarius, but it’s so few that to list them in an article is to give extreme undue weight to that side. The list also is written as a Gish gallop – a whole series of illogical arguments with their own adherents designed to obfuscate the lack of evidence of the other side. Bearian (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2019 (UTC)

A few brave contrarian voices try to argue against censorship.

One makes the point that the scientists on the list aren’t exactly cranks:

Let’s take a look at the list of people responsible for your so called “fringe theories advanced for religious purposes,” shall we?

Patrick Moore, one of the founders of Greenpeace;

Ivan Giaver, who won the Nobel Peace Prize;

Judith Curry, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Georgia Institute of Technology;

Richard Lindzen, retired head of the Atmospheric Sciences Department of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and member of the National Academy of Sciences (you know, that thing Einstein was a member of);

Vincent Courtillot, a member of the French Academy of Sciences;

Khabibullo Abdussamatov, a member of the Russian Academy of Sciences;

John Christy, who is a professor at the University of Alabama at Huntsville, who keeps the temperature data used by NOAA and NASSA, and who contributes to the IPCC reports;

Roy Spencer, who keeps the data with John Christy;

Frederich Seitz, former President of the National Academy of Sciences.

Another has to point out that one of the purposes of Wikipedia is to help people research stuff:

This is a valid list article since it helps people find scientists of this type.

But the best response is this one:

With apologies to people who have been conned into believing that the WP climate area is sound … Who are we kidding here? This is an important, long standing article that gives a tiny sliver of balance to grotesquely POV, essentially permanently vandalized, articles on Climate

Full article here.

HT/Latitude and a bunch of others I’m missing.

168 thoughts on “Delingpole: Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History

  1. I think the Stalinist Comic Book Guy Voice censor meant “astrology”, not “astronomy”.

    • Now this article was written by people who support the Consensus vies of Climate Change. If they wrote Astronomy, they obviously meant Astronomy. It is the Stalinist Comic Book Guy after all…
      To pick on Valid Scientists is to pick on Valid Sciences

      • The guy recently “earned a master’s of art in teaching secondary science”.

        And he still can’t tell his Astrology from a hole in the ground.

        And he may be paid, with public tax dollars, to teach the kids as he deems appropriate, given his level of knowledge.

        Whoever gave him the Masters, that he paid for, should be questioned.

        • Whoever gave him the Masters, that he paid for, should be questioned.

          Most every College and University has morphed into money making businesses that their Administrators sell Diplomas “for profit”.

        • I found it (the world) was not round . . . but pear shaped, round where it has a nipple, for there it is taller, or as if one had a round ball and, on one side, it should be like a woman’s breast, and this nipple part is the highest and closest to Heaven

          Columbus

        • re: “Gallileo did not go along with the consensus!”

          Neither has Dr. Randell L. Mills (of BrLP), and that drives the likes of more than just a few here (I COULD mention names) insane.

    • The Wikipedia should publish the list of 87 “consensus scientists”, also known as 97%.

    • I think this Wikipedia guy who regularly asks for money because he does not believe in Capitalism, but is happy to impose his own warped thinking, needs some sort of boycott.

      Any Suggestions?

      Cheers

      Roger

      • Wikipedia actually has some good articles. They have a pretty complete one on Maurice Strong, a Canadian oil baron, head of UNEP, the UN group that started the global warming scandal. He had lots of good and bad press for being both in the oil industry, the climate industry, and the United Nations, often at the same time.

    • If by ‘astronomy’ they meant the holy trinity of Big Bang, Black Holes and Dark Matter, they are probably correct.

  2. This is dangerous beyond belief and another step towards totalitarian rule with the ministry of truth editing out history so as to poison the minds of the masses. The Internet Gulag is in full swing.
    There will be no dissenting voices!

    • So the guys who claim that they are right because most scientists agree with them, now proclaim that anyone who keeps a list of scientists who agree with them are cranks and discredit themselves.

      • Oh don’t worry, they are still keeping a list. These are the type of people that burn books, they definitely keep lists of people who wrote those books. For when they run out of books to burn.

  3. At some time in the past ten years, climate change denial-ism has become the next alchemy, ether, and astronomy.

    well maybe he meant astrology ? So much for his alleged MA in secondary teaching.

  4. Ah well, we’ll all be toast in 10 (or 12, depending upon who you read) years anyway, so it doesn’t really matter…

  5. This is a valid list article since it helps people find scientists of this type.

    That is exactly what scares these zealots most, that someone may actually find some real, useful information on WonkyPedia.

    • When you choose “truth over facts” (as Joe Biden recently stated), you are free to believe or reject anything. Truth that is devoid of fact can be anything you want it to be. But usually it takes the form of the latest fad because fads always lay claim to consensus for authority, at least until the fad fades. When you build your scientific house on sand, eventually the sand shifts or washes away and your house falls because it is not anchored to the bedrock of facts. The same fate will eventually overtake the current fad of radical, alarmist climate-change.

    • So true.
      Now, we’re supposed to accept that, since the days of Copernicus and Kepler, science has been merely a tool of Western, white male privilege.
      “Help! Help! We’re being oppressed!”🤣

  6. “At some time in the past ten years, climate change denial-ism has become the next alchemy, ether, and astronomy. ” So it this writer an astronomy denier? I hope he meant astrology.

    But seriously, this may simply be an effort to avoid litigation over what is clearly intended to be a blacklist for climate scientists. Ask Judith Curry.

  7. Well that is the end of my donations to Wikipedia. I never thought that James would allow the thought police to take over.

    • I shall keep on sending them $10 every couple of years. This does not change the value of Wikipedia. It is, and always was, completely and utterly useless on any contemporary, controversial subjects. It should only ever be used to search for historical facts, objective explanations of any issue and the like.

      It is disappointing, though, that they do not stand up for free speech and free thought today. But sadly, here they are not alone.

      • It should only ever be used to search for historical facts, objective explanations of any issue and the like.

        Even their “historical facts” are heavily Leftist filtered, and get rewritten regularly as the Party Line shifts.

      • I am a doctor and use Wiki for many medical details and find it useful.

        But beware of learning your history from Wiki. History is a subject long subjected to revisionism….just ask the Armenians…or the Turks…whichever side you favour. And all nations and peoples have their self-illusions. Ask yourself….how is Wiki going to report on the NY Times 1619 Project….the greatest example of politically-correct historic revisionism in recent history? Do you think Wiki will stand athwart progress as defined by the Editors of the NYT and yell “Stop!”? Or will they go along with the program to teach us what a debased, evil nation the United States is with all its wealth and goodness grown out of slavery (ignoring the millions of the world who still risk death, rape, and a hundred difficulties to come to this terrible, benighted racist land (as the NYT sees America)?

        Beware of Wiki wherever politics or pet peeves could be involved. Otherwise, a pretty good site for info.

        • Wow, kwinterkorn. What a bagful of miserable prejudices you are. You studied medicine – obviously not history.

          • Andy Esperseen – I suggest that you either read, or carefully re re re read what kwinterkorn wrote.
            – Is there good reason that your analyses of what “data sources” are reliable or not definitively superior to those of others who may have a different perspective to yours? Which is the main theme of this thread.

            Kwinterkorn gave THREE specific examples. You refer to “a bagful of miserable prejudices”.
            – Are you suggesting all three examples – when two are counterexamples to each other on the same subject?
            – Or are you suggesting the Turks version of the Armenian “events” correct?
            Or the Turkish version.
            – Or do you feel that his suggestion that reports of historical events should be viewed with due caution constitutes a bagful of whatever.
            – Or does his desire to see the 1619 project (which I in far off NZ was not aware of) in a different light to you (seem to you to) merit your “bagful” inclusion of all his other material?

            Russell McMahon
            Auckland, New Zealand.

            PS: Ad hominem responses the expected norm to such ‘challenges’, but not recommended.

        • Kwinterkorn – I wish to withdraw my little comment about you. I misread you. You are really on the side of the angels!

          Sorry.

          • @Andy Espersen: Well done, Sir!
            I agree with Kwinterkorn on the difficulty of evaluating history. And I’m looking forward to learn more about our (mankind’s) astonishing 400 years of slavery (and counting). Greetings.-

    • yes Im angry that I have donated a small amt in the past
      is this that nasty chappie William whatever? behind this?
      is an email complaint bombing overdue to wiki?

    • Because I had to look:

      Freedom of speech[2] is a principle that supports the freedom of an individual or a community to articulate their opinions and ideas without fear of retaliation, censorship, or legal sanction. The term “freedom of expression” is sometimes used synonymously but includes any act of seeking, receiving, and imparting information or ideas, regardless of the medium used.

      Wiki search for ‘freedom if speech’. (Sigh)

    • It’s pretty clear to me that Wales *IS* the thought police. I haven’t found anything at Wikipedia to value or admire for many years, possibly it is now time to act against it.

    • Wouldn’t surprise me if most leftists didn’t realize there was more than one Nobel Prize.

    • It seems that a Nobel Peace Prize, or belief in a mann’s own heart that he won such, clearly trumps any dumb, old Physics Prize when it comes to AGW. Besides, we can see the catastophic effects of global warming all around us, while no one has EVER observed quantum tunneling with their own eyes!

      /sarc

      • We must respect the fact that Dr Mann “self-identifies” as a Nobel Laureate.

        Just hope he doesn’t start running in girl’s track meets.

        • I liked Michael Mann much better when he played that fat slob dweeb Dennis Nedry in the first Jurassic Park movie…

    • As long as we are correcting the record, not only did he not win the Nobel Peace Prize, his first name is Ivar and not Ivan and we should spell his last name correctly as well….Giaever. I also think NASA and NOAA are better known for ignoring the satellite data from Christy and Spencer than they are for using it. I could be wrong.

    • Ivar Giaever having won the Nobel Prize in physics – that wouldn’t do to mention would it? It’s good physics above all that can topple the warmist fake science. AND he’s still alive!

  8. Here’s the first paragraph of Dr. Susan Crockford’s Wikipedia entry:

    “Susan Janet Crockford (born 1954) is a Canadian author and blogger who writes about zoology and climate science, specializing in Holocene mammals. From 2004 to 2019 she was an adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria.[1] She is best known for her blog posts on polar bear biology, which oppose the scientific consensus[2] that polar bears are threatened by ongoing climate change.[3]”

    She opposes the “scientific consensus that polar bears are threatened by ongoing climate change” because the facts show they are not.

    At Wikipedia, “we don’t need no stinking facts” when discussing “climate science consensus”.

  9. Much against my better judgement, I donated £3 to this subversive organisation some time ago.

    No idea why I did it, the constant bleating when one visit’s the site probably had much to do with it.

    I’ll never donate another bean, and am inclined to demand the return of my £3, but I know it would be a waste of time.

    There is only one reference I have ever used from it, the article on John Tyndall’s radiant heat apparatus, linked to directly from The Royal Institution https://tinyurl.com/tfs9sop which states:

    “He [Tyndall] was the first to correctly measure the relative infrared absorptive powers of the gases nitrogen, oxygen, water vapour, carbon dioxide, ozone, methane, and other trace gases and vapours. He concluded that water vapour is the strongest absorber of radiant heat in the atmosphere and is the principal gas controlling air temperature. Absorption by the other gases is not negligible but relatively small.”

    I think that’s fairly clear, and as The Royal Institution endorse it, credible to use in any discussion of atmospheric CO2.

    Direct link to the Wikipedia article here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Tyndall

    • “Much against my better judgement, I donated £3 to this subversive organisation some time ago.”

      HotScot: I too notice Wikipedia’s fundraising campaigns from time to time. I realized from the beginning that they pretty much toed the climate alarmist party line and do not generally give any respect or credibility to climate skeptics and their science. Thus, it is always an easy decision for me to pass on donating any money to their effort.

      While I admit to going to Wikipedia sometimes when I want to look something up, this post regarding the deletion of skeptic scientists from that list only serves to reinforce my justification for withholding donations. They don’t want to know what they can do with their request for money from me.

      • “I too notice Wikipedia’s fundraising campaigns from time to time. ”

        I’ve read that Wikipedia doesn’t need those individual donations, but it maintains asking for them, in order to look like a crowd-funded organization that is just scraping by. In fact (I’ve read), it gets $30 million annually from some big leftist NGO.

  10. The book The Deniers – an excellent introduction to who’s who in the climate world and written by somebody curious to learn – the author was surprised by all the eminent people he found having views contrary to the global warming consensus. He initially expected – given the media coverage – to find a small number of smalltime people, but here were some of the top in their fields with Nobel prizes and achievements behind them. The final chapter is quite telling as he then looks at those behind the global warming scam and the IPCC reports. He finds a small lacklustre clique of under-achievers. No wonder they cling to fame, fortune and spotlight of global warming so hard.

  11. “I see a consensus here.” What could go wrong with that kind of objective decision making?

  12. The thing that will most surely destroy us all, in the end, is bad information.
    Censorship inevitably results in bad information.
    This could get very ugly, very soon.
    Could that be the plan?

  13. Still quoting the “consensus” as though it has a place in science. All of which proves the very point that these alarmists are using tactics from all the greats -Stalin, Hitler (Greta), Pol Pot etc.
    Unbelievable that this can keep on…

    • “Still quoting the “consensus” as though it has a place in science.”

      What else do alarmists have to use to bolster their arguments other than citing a fraudulent consensus report? Alarmists have nothing. So they are reduced to pretending that just about everyone agrees with their point of view.

      Alarmists wouldn’t have to cite consensus if they had any evidence to show people. They don’t have any evidence, so they lie.

    • If Climate Crisis Science actually did have the power of 97% of the entire Climate Science community in solid agreement (crisis certain), that consensus would have nearly immovable power.

      But nowhere near 97% believe that we are headed for toward a certain calamity.

      A true consensus in science DOES have significant power but that is alwats HARD WON in real science…won after addressing all serious adversarial positions (not tossing them off with ad hominems) and resolving those arguments to the satisfaction of the vast majority.

      But also in real Science, one bit of irrefutable evidence will reset the tables.

      Alas, the Science and the Politics has gotten too messy and it’s always been too complicated. There won’t be that one bit of evidence that will be able to close the books on this fraud. Probably not even a 1 C drop in GAT’s over the next few decades (though that would certainly help resolve the political side of things). I hope I live long enough to see Real Science reign supreme.

      • Sorry to disagree, and I know I’m likely going to p1$$ off people on both sides of the question, but:

        “Real Science” is exclusively a matter of the construction of a falsifiable hypothesis, followed by attempts to prove it incorrect, which either fail or succeed. All else is ledger maintenance…

        • Was Lubos Motl on the “evil denier“ list?

          Without a sufficient and falsifiable hypothesis, there is no science. “Climate Science” has failed utterly to articulate one, and the consensus’s protestations that such an hypothesis is not required should be treated with disdain and contempt.

  14. Wikipedia is where truth goes to die! Actually Wikipedia is for persons with short attention spans to check out the politically correct view. Cross-checking not allowed for these fools in a hurry.

  15. It is not just climate science the is under threat. It is any challenge to certain theories. In a book titled Darwin’s Doubt, a Chinese scientist says that in China you can’t criticize the government, but you can criticize Darwin. In America you can criticize the government, but you can’t criticize Darwin. In other words criticizing certain Scientific theories in America in like criticizing a totalitarian government.

    • Of course you can criticize Darwin. Tens of millions freely do. That doesn’t change the fact of evolution by means of natural selection and other processes observed daily.

  16. I like how he writes out “masters of arts” trying to make it sound prestigious.

    In short, the guy is now allowed to teach in public HS, ergo he can decide who is a credentialed scientist.

  17. What a pity – now we have to include Wikipedia among the “science deniers”! So, no more financial contributions from me – until they admit their grave mistake.

  18. Sometimes the truth is difficult to deny. Consider:

    The climate has been changing for more than the last 70 years and during that time more polar bears die each year now than did 70 years ago. In the 1950’s, approximately 240 polar bears died each year and now that number is a whopping 1200! If we human’s are contributing to the changing climate, the polar bear blood is on our hands.

    Now, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain, but … full disclosure, I’ve done these rough calculations on only two data points: one, the idea that polar bears live approximately 25 years (or so), meaning about 4% of them die naturally each year; and two, in 1950 there were approx. 6,000 polar bears and in 2020 a reasonable estimate of 30,000 has been made. Admittedlly, these are back of the envelope figures and I’m sure Dr. Susan Crockford may refine them somewhat since she has been researching this for far longer than I, but the truth is the truth. Ergo, more polar bears now equals more annual polar bear deaths annually. Hmm … so if the climate has changed and they have increased in number and humans actually are contributing to the changing climate, maybe we aren’t so bloody after all.

    Now, here’s the challenge:

    copy and paste this post to other blogs and watch how the “Alarmists” only quote the first paragraph. “Settled science” in action.

    • If about 7 billion humans are responsible for the death of 1,200 polar bears per year, the average person has killed 0.17 millionth of a polar bear every year (maybe, indirectly, even if some of them died of old age).

      But how many seals does the average polar bear eat every year (maybe Dr. Susan Crockford can answer that)? Probably more than one. A few decades ago, we all saw horrible photos of fur traders clubbing baby seals to death, and animal activists were outraged at the carnage of baby seals for their pelts. Even if the human killing of baby seals for fur has decreased, all those extra polar bears have lots of seal blood on their claws (unless they licked it off)!

      I’m not saying that human beings should take either side in the ongoing (and probably never-ending) war between polar bears and seals, but where are all the PETA people shouting “Save the Seals, Kill Polar Bears”?

    • It says this about wattsupwiththat

      Watts Up With That? (WUWT) is a blog promoting climate change denial that was created by Anthony Watts in 2006.

      Methinks that is a non-starter.

      • That is a verbatim copy of the Wikipedia entry on the subject. Maybe the guy promoting it here has a financial interest in promoting it?

  19. Wikipedia is full of obsessive people pushing wheelbarrows who seem to live on the platform and never stop pushing to remake reality as they would like it to be. Fighting them is like trying to lift water with a fork.

  20. I objected via email yesterday. I had a reply this morning, q.v.

    “Dear Tim,

    I assume that you are referring to this deletion debate:
    referenced in this Breitbart article:
    .

    Wikipedia articles are deleted based on established policies and guidelines, usually after a community discussion. In this
    case, the page was deleted because it not meet the guidelines for the creation of a list article
    and contained too much original research or
    unpublished synthesis . All content on Wikipedia should
    summarize on what independent, reliable sources have said on a topic and not make claims that those sources have made.

    You can read more about the deletion policy on Wikipedia at .

    Yours sincerely,
    Jason Booker


    Wikipedia – https://en.wikipedia.org/

    Disclaimer: all mail to this address is answered by volunteers, and responses are not to be considered an official statement
    of the Wikimedia Foundation. For official correspondence, please contact the Wikimedia Foundation by certified mail at the
    address listed on https://www.wikimediafoundation.org/

    03/08/2020 21:37 – **********@gmail.com wrote:

    > “Wikipedia Airbrushes List of Climate Sceptic Scientists Out of History”
    >
    > I have donated to you over the years, but will not any more. Facts are decided by
    > exchanging
    > views between people with differing ideas, not by a Nazi style dictation of what
    > you can or
    > cannot believe.
    >
    > Tim.”

    • Thanks Tim. I have donated regularly to Wiki as I like the concept even if the reality falls short. Noble cause crusaders work hard to control the sources of information whereas most of us who aren’t “existentially” threatened don’t feel the urgency to proselytise. Thank God for Anthony and a few other stalwarts who maintain easy access to the debate. So based on Wiki’s reply, do we continue to contribute or not? The Wiki reply is bafflegab to me.

      • The main “concept” I see in play at Wikipedia is “crowd-sourcing” of “facts”. How exactly does that differ from the concept that lunatics should run the asylums?

      • “The Wiki reply is bafflegab to me.”

        A few years ago I was fairly aware of Wikipedia’s often-arcane guidelines. I’ll attempt an interpretation of it, which reads:

        “the page was deleted because it not meet the guidelines for the creation of a list article
        and contained too much original research or unpublished synthesis. All content on Wikipedia should summarize on what independent, reliable sources have said on a topic and not make claims that those sources have made.”

        The second sentence means that wiki wants a collection of what the mainstream consensus (“reliable sources”) says about the positions of these mavericks—i.e., dismissive critiques, not a neutral description of their stance, which (first sentence) involved paraphrasing and the imposition of a categorical skeleton—IOW “original research or unpublished synthesis.”

        Something like these rules is needed to keep subjectivity and fraud out of an encyclopedia, and to keep it “respectable.” But occasionally, as here, they should be held in abeyance, because some original paraphrasing and synthesis is what’s needed.

  21. I don’t know of many people who disagree with the statement that ‘the climate is changing’. It has, obviously, changed over billions of years! What I strongly disagree with is the ‘Climate Emergency or Crisis’ talked about at every turn on MSM.

    When someone presents me with peer-reviewed evidence that, for instance, that CO2 is responsible for all the bush-fires, hurricanes, global warming, flooding and imminent sea-level disasters (or for that matter if the sun shines too much or it rains too heavily) I shall review my opinions. Until then …………….!!!

  22. Here is Wiki’s entry for The Heartland Institute.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Heartland_Institute

    An extract:

    “In the 1990s, the Heartland Institute worked with the tobacco company Philip Morris to attempt to discredit the health risks of secondhand smoke and to lobby against smoking bans. Since the 2000s, the Heartland Institute has been a leading promoter of climate change denial. It rejects the scientific consensus on climate change, and says that policies to fight it would be damaging to the economy.”

    The whole article continues in a similar vein, even Anthony gets a mention. This is what happens when climate change alarmists are in charge of producing a Wiki entry for an organisation which is associated with climate change scepticism.

    The revision history is sprinkled with changes made by one William M. Connolley whom many of you will have heard of.

      • Henry Pool, why not hear it from Heartland themselves?

        https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/press-release-heartland-institute-statement-on-reogranization

        PRESS RELEASE: Heartland Institute Statement on Reorganization”
        March 8, 2020
        By Jim Lakely

        The following is a statement on the reorganization of The Heartland Institute, which began on Friday, March 6, 2020

        The Heartland Institute conducted layoffs of some full- and part-time staff on Friday, March 6, and we have reorganized the leadership of the organization. This reduction in personnel and reorganization will make Heartland more efficient and focused. It will put us in a stronger financial position to continue …

        They will continue; their days aren’t “numbered”.

          • Why your interest, Henry Pool?

            Your expressed ‘morbid’ schadenfreude looks unhealthy here; do you normally trod out and expose your psyche like this? Do you carry over this predilection to ‘expose’ into other areas of your life as well? Is this something we should perhaps notify the authorities about, and potentially solve a crime or two in your village, town, city or state?

        • Like most leftists, you see what you are trained to see and only believe those who agree with that.

      • It’s a reorganisation.

        https://www.heartland.org/news-opinion/news/press-release-heartland-institute-statement-on-reogranization

        “The Heartland Institute conducted layoffs of some full- and part-time staff on Friday, March 6, and we have reorganized the leadership of the organization. This reduction in personnel and reorganization will make Heartland more efficient and focused. It will put us in a stronger financial position to continue advocating for personal freedom, as well as to continue our important role in educating the public and public officials about climate alarmism, and focus on the science and the significant threat alarmism poses to our economy. Working with supporters and contributors, we are confident Heartland’s mission-oriented work will continue, uninterrupted, for many years to come.

        This month, Heartland will be announcing the launch of two important new initiatives to arm policymakers and the public with vital information to counter the global alarmist Climate Delusion. Heartland will also be hosting its 14th International Conference on Climate Change in Las Vegas in May. The Heartland Institute’s new personnel structure will allow us to more effectively promote these important truths and programs.”

        • ” It will put us in a stronger financial position”……cutting staff means their financial position is deteriorating.

          • Did you get laid off, Henry Pool?

            I can’t imagine why … your performance here is nothing short of ‘stellar’ …

            /spoof

          • Who can believe the Huff when it comes out with such rubbish as, “The Illinois-based Heartland Institute ― which captured headlines last month for promoting a German teenager with ties to neo-Nazis as the climate denier’s alternative to acclaimed youth activist Greta Thunberg ”

            Oh, I see …. you believe it. It figures.

          • Henry, in whatever world your mind resides in, no companies have ever re-organized?

            There are many reasons to re-organize, to cut costs is only one of them. Regardless, all companies and organizations seek to cut costs all of the time. It only means that they seek to waste less money.

            The fact that you prefer to believe only what huff po tells you to believe says more about you and your own biases than it does about Heartland.

          • Wrong.
            It is not uncommon for charity and non-charity organizations to reorganize to better represent their aims and revenue

            It all too easy for these organization end up overstaffed. Reducing staff and reordering priorities for those employed is the only answer.

            To fail such a reorganization is when their financial positions deteriorate; as funds are wasted by unnecessary employees.

            Leaps to extreme conclusions from minimal evidence or opinions is what alarmists regularly perform; to the detriment of science.

  23. The simple answer is to encourage people to stop using Wikipedia.

    I never use it for any politically contentious information gathering.

    It is quite useful for things like Latitudes of places, average temperature and rainfall data.

    But I would never read it on climate change, politics, the Cold War, anything to do with Russian politics etc etc.

  24. At first Wikipedia was untrustworthy. Then,over time, most topics became trustworthy because you could follow and verify the links and/or participate in editing any article.

    Then it became owned by people who have an agenda other than the most accurate encyclopedia possible.

  25. The “we have more guys on our side so that means we’re right!” scientific argument……

  26. The following website should not go unmentioned in this discussion: http://www.petitionproject.org/

    It claims that “31,487 American scientists have signed this petition, including 9,029 with PhDs” but I have no information on the degree to which this claim has been established as being accurate. Since it is basically an on-line petition, the claimed status of signers needs to be verified by an independent agency.

    But even if only 20% of the signing petitioners are truthful in their asserted climate-relative-informed status/college degrees, this would greatly expand the list of scientists previously found on Wikipedia that questioned the AGW/CAGW meme being advanced by the “consensus”.

    Lastly, I guess the editor-censors at Wikipedia do not know the the word “consensus” is nowhere to be found in a full description of the scientific method.

  27. Anything maintained by “public consensus” will end up tainted by activist group think – it’s just obvious. This is why anything that is controversial or political will end up one sided on a media like Wikipedia. You just have to vaccinate yourself and others not to trust such sources on anything controversial…just like you do for mainstream “news” media.

    It is truly a shame that balanced thought and skepticism is no longer valued. People are being trained by our public school system, including the universities, to be sheep. This is the first step to setting up a strong central social government. Truth is always a victim when a centralized government is the goal. (So is freedom)

  28. Wikipedia did it with Australian wildfire history too. They airbrushed out the 1974 fire that was 10 times larger than the one this year (that MSM wants us to believe is the biggest one ever). When you look it up there it says there were no fires in 1974.
    You have to dig deep into the references to find it.
    Wikipedia is no longer a useful information resource. It’s merely a political tool now.

  29. I found the archived version of the “Climate Deniers List” and I did not see Christopher Monkton. Is he just not trying hard enough? Or is this an indication of the accuracy of the “List”?

  30. Where stand the thirty-one thousand plus named American scientists in petition.project.org who are ‘sceptical’. Perhaps they have all died? This is another example of the finger nails screeching as the ‘climate change’ mob falls backwards over a cliff. Like Attenborough’ s walruses- supported by the BBC of course, an obscene pack of lies compered by that famous whispery voice we all love so much

  31. These people are going to look so stupid when the future comes, when there hasn’t been any catastrophic warming – or any significant warming – when the real world data has so far diverged from the model projections that only a major “adjustment” can restore the faith of the credulous, and when finally, we hear the words we long to hear: “Scientists admit they were wrong about climate change”. I just hope the skeptics never tire of reminding them of their hubris and folly, for there are few people in the world, who are so puffed up with insufferable pomposity that so deserve such a complete humiliation.

  32. Interestingly , even a long established consensus can be revised by scientists with an objective attitude that would not endear them to Wiki’s owners/editors. My comment is prompted by the recent post on Paul Homewood’s site:
    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2020/03/09/met-office-does-not-know-what-extreme-weather-is/#comments
    where “climanrecon” draws attention to a very recent article from Roy Met soc:
    https://rmets.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002/joc.6208
    -“Multi‐century trends to wetter winters and drier summers in the England and Wales precipitation series explained by observational and sampling bias in early records-”
    Picking out part of the conclusion:
    -“Our findings challenge the widely reported trend to wetter winters and drier summers in England and Wales precipitation. Indeed, for winter the biases we identify in EWP are likely to have distorted many other long‐term European precipitation series (e.g., Murphy et al., 2018) and dependent analyses (e.g., Wilby et al., 2016), particularly through the under‐catch of snow. Our findings that pre‐1870 precipitation is likely too low in winter and that pre‐1820 precipitation is likely too high in summer raise issues about the application of early EWP data to historical drought analysis, climate model evaluation and for benchmarking other precipitation and proxy records for these periods.”- (EWP = England Wales Precipitation series)

    One of the authors is Phil Jones of Climate Research Unit , UEA .

    • In other words, no one actually noticed it getting wetter, they just told you it was.

  33. Wiki, I am given to understand, is an acronym for “What I Know Is”. Perhaps it’s time to rename the site with a more fitting acronym, “Truth Is Never Knowingly Equally Represented”

    Tinkerpedia?

    • “Wikiwiki” is a Hawaiian word meaning “Very quickly”.

      It was first applied to the Internet around 1994 for the knowledge base WikiWikiWeb.

  34. If someone references Wikipedia with respect to climate or weather I tell them it is an unreliable biased source which I never go to.

  35. So..next time Wikipedia starts bleating about how much they need my money to continue their great work, I will respond by telling them to “Get Fekked”.

    • Think about it: There is probably a consensus of readers of Wiki who do NOT contribute. By Wiki’s ideals, Wiki should not be supported by the public.

  36. Its worse when you look at the supposed explanation of the “science”. When you check “Global Warming” on Wikipedia you get a number of assertions which are either unprovebale, unsupported by evidence in fact, actually denied by evidence and unrelated to global climate measurement or effect by clear definition.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_warming

    To select a few of the outright deceits on the facts. The first para[rah says “While there have been prehistoric periods of global warming,[12] observed changes since the mid-20th century have been unprecedented in rate and scale.[13]”.

    This is clearly false, as the rate and range of change is known to have been similar for rate and greater for range and upper limit during this recent and very short 10,000 year Holecene interglacial, though Minoan/Egyptian Greco Roman periods. The actual rise in the very recent 500 year past is steady and around the small 0.5 deg /century we have directly observed as well as through proxies since 1670, . The gradual cyclic rise and fall we haveobserved ove the whole interglacial is now seen to be most probably due to the three key solar cycles of 1,000, 500 and 200 year periods , which together can quite precisely account for the cyclic change observed throughout the interglacial, which CO2 and AGW cannot, and which have all combined positively to reach a concurrent maximum at c.2000 AD, as also happened at 1,000AD. ANd a dstrutcive mimum at 1650 or so. Selecting a small part of a natural cycle that is going up now, and is due to go down again soon, over hundreds of years, and declaring eternal runaway rise is the future on the basis of a 50 year clip, in the knowledge of the known natural reality is simply delusional. For so called “scientists’ , its a deliberate deceit created to deceive people for grant reward.

    The next bit of “science” is the assertion that because a lot on University academics paid to prove rather than test the CO2/AGW theory agree, even though the facts deny their assertions, then they must be right and the observations are wrong.

    SIC
    “These findings have been recognised by the national science academies of the major industrialised nations[16][17] and are not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing.[18][19]”
    ENDS

    This is overtly false on the definition of scientific method. It also implies all agree, which many academies or academics within them or their profs do not. UAH for a start. Most of the selected academies agreeing have been funded by the IPCC or their governments to prove something that the science facts have later denied. Consensus is what you do when you can’t prove something you want to impose on others.

    It doesn’t matter how many agree, if one person can prove the theory wrong, It’s wrong. Feynman, EIsntein had that locked down.

    The rest of it gets ever more unscientific as it goes on. The sea level rise is known to be similar to that applying long before the human effect is supposed to have started. The assertion about increased extreme weather is denied by the IPCC itself as not the fact, the authors then start mixing up global with regional climate change which is mainly regional ocean oscillations unrelated to 30 year average temperatures and global effects, which the IPCC also acknowledges. Serious fairy tales.

    And ultimately the lack of any factual proof that CO2 or AGW is responsible for the observed change, and the ignored evidence regarding measured GHE effect versus that predicted, is totally ignored. Hardly unbiased sceptical science.

    But the killer blow is the use of Michael Mann’s fraudulent fake science, the discredited and wrong Hockey stick graph as the basis of the warming statement, the same one that smoothed off the actual cooling from the mediaeval warm period peak when Greenland was colonised and farmed at 1,000AD to the1670 ‘s little ice age floor when it wasn’t, and subsequent steady rise of 0.5 degrees per century to today’s levels, plus another wholly assertive graph claiming to show what change would be without the unknown human effect, based on no science at all.

    AS for the sensationalist litany of XR/THunberg anti fact, the deserts are not expanding, plant growth at their peripheries is encroaching on the deserts thanks probably to CO2 increase. Climate varies regionally, and always has. Droughts and wildfires have only increased or been made worse in places when human interference with the local natural forest management has been the main problem. The “extinction of many species” is getting completely wild – which species, and from what cause? Mostly its competition for land, not changing habitat. Just think of anything you can, and blame it on climate change. Mostly falsely. In fact deaths from natural extreme events are down 90% from a few decades ago, many more Billion people are out of poverty most of the World has reduced infant mortality , saving 4 children from early deaths per family. And agricultural productivity is at all time highs, as is reduaction of crop failure by disease, etc. Famine caused by inadeqaute food generation has been eliminated, only war zones and government obstruction of adequate supplies now creates famine. We can meet the demand.

    SIC
    “The effects of global warming include rising sea levels, regional changes in precipitation, more frequent extreme weather events such as heat waves, and expansion of deserts.[20] Surface temperature increases are greatest in the Arctic, which have contributed to the retreat of glaciers, permafrost, and sea ice. Overall, higher temperatures bring more rain and snowfall, but for some regions droughts and wildfires increase instead.[21] Climate change threatens to diminish crop yields, harming food security, and rising sea levels may flood coastal infrastructure and force the abandonment of many coastal cities.[22] Environmental impacts include the extinction or relocation of many species as their ecosystems change, most immediately in coral reefs, mountains, and the Arctic.[23] Some impacts, such as loss of snow cover, increased water vapour, and melting permafrost, cause feedback effects that further increase the rate of global warming.[24] Ocean acidification caused by increased CO2 levels is commonly grouped with these effects even though it is not driven by temperature.
    ENDS

    You can’t make it up. That’s the activists job, and Wikipedia actively promotes deceit by omission and outright lies by assertion.

    Wikipedia is no longer a reliable place to go for scientific facts, and certainly not for balance. Look for more unbiased sources when checking facts. Actually, the increasingly wild language and easy to prove false in fact asssertions in these these clips, and elsewhere in this Wiki ,shows just how easy it is to spot that this is activist propaganda, not a considered analysis or a balanced assessment.

  37. Pity. There is a reason I never donate to Wikipedia. As long as they continue to impose this kind of censorship upon an area of science (where scientific debate is supposed to be “robust” for important reasons – like, the advancement of knowledge, as distinct from sheer myth and propaganda), I will not even think about making a donation, and will confine my reading of Wikipedia to the travel articles.

  38. “…and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”
    That would include Galileo then.

    • In the history of science, the consensus is almost always wrong. It is the job of scientists to challenge whatever consensuses there might be.

    • But McCarthy was correct about the Communist Threat. After he properly “bombed out” from lack of due process, the Deep State was born.

      • Exactly, the term McCarthism is smear-slogan of the left. It should not be used by informed ones.

  39. So the k-12 teacher with a claimed MA, commented on how these experienced specialists in the relevant science disciplines with MS’ and beyond are cranks. You can’t make this stuff up!

  40. Maybe there should be a Wiki list of ‘Wiki lists that have been censored, manipulated or deleted by Left-wing c*ckwombles and sp*nktrumpets’.

    It’d be a long list.

  41. Gish Gallop…
    Wouldn’t that apply to the claim of a 97% consensus?

    Not so seriously….
    OTOH, do gish need saddles and spurs to gallop in one direction?

  42. The very fact they feel obliged to do this kind of ridiculous move tells all what is needed to know about these people.

  43. It’s a pity. Wikipedia was such a good idea. It still has good, even very good articles, e.g. the one on quechuan languages. Good enough to get a first overview if your doing some research, in my eyes.
    But how can you know if your reading a good article or not?

  44. I see we’re back to HOURS before a comment is displayed. I thought this problem was behind us, Anthony. Please get it sorted. Your blog is dynamic because comments are immediately contextual.
    (What are the odds that this comment is up in seconds?!)

  45. What’s the big deal? People have deluded themselves into thinking Wiki is some kind of real encyclopedia and has merit. If you’re that stupid, everything else if easy to convince you of. As was said, there’s a sucker born every minute (maybe second at this point) and believing Wiki is some kind of an authority is a great way to identify them. Maybe it’s the Biden syndrome–can’t remember what an actual encyclopedia was so you make something up. Anyway, this editing is the very least of the problems with Wiki.

  46. This is not censorship. This is wikipedia deciding whether or not an internal page meets its own guidelines. And the decision was that the page contained too much original research and therefore is not suitable. No-one is being censored and there is nothing to stop other people from making their own list and publishing it on their own website. If you want to create a page on wikipedia then it has to meet wikipedia’s internal standards.

    • It is censorship, however it’s not government censorship.

      Nobody said that Wiki had no right to do this, just that they were wrong to do this.

      Funny how Wiki only applies their “standards” to groups that the left dislikes.

    • “Izaak Walton March 9, 2020 at 3:20 pm
      This is not censorship. This is wikipedia deciding whether or not an internal page meets its own guidelines. And the decision was that the page contained too much original research and therefore is not suitable. No-one is being censored and there is nothing to stop other people from making their own list and publishing it on their own website. If you want to create a page on wikipedia then it has to meet wikipedia’s internal standards.”

      Utter specious nonsense. Nonsense that denies the actions occurred as described by many many witnesses to wikipedia’s evil sneaks.

      One begins to think that this Izaak whatever is themselves a wikipedia editor, desperately maintaining their crushing thumb of dubious opinions on honest science.
      Pathetic, completely pathetic.

      • Again, no one is being censored. Wikipedia has deleted a list of most retired
        white academics as not being particularly useful, informative or complete. The academics in question still appear to have their own wiki pages (see for example
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Willie_Soon)

        And for those with a longer memory it is interesting that when Nature Communications published a list of 386 climate contrarians many of the people on the list including Anthony Watts threatened to sue and demanded that the list be removed. See:
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/08/16/nature-communications-blinks-over-slimy-climate-blacklist-from-ucmerced-authors/

        So I am curious why is Wikipedia removing a similar list an example of evil censorship but if Nature publishes such a list then that is slander and it must be taken down?

        • > deleted a list of most retired white academics as not being particularly useful

          What so special about beeing white? Is it a cause of deletation now?

          Willie Soon is malasian. But he talks about facts. Are facts now ‘white’? Or is science now ‘purilly white concept’?

          • Well, according to the woke left, science itself is a product white privilege and “the patriarchy” and its fundamental principles must be deconstructed and replace by socially progressive notions emphasising feminist and disenfranchised societal viewpoints. This is apparently necessary because there are too few women of colour in science and no other explanation or remedy is permissible.

            I am also reliably informed that logic is an assertion of white maleness and must be immediately replaced with a feminist and racially sensitive logic that is more inclusive of oppressed minorities.

  47. How about WUWT offer a survey open to all members of the scientific community wherein they could report whether or not they believe the co2-warming “consensus”? No doubt it would generate interesting numbers.

  48. In a real history-preserving event, rather than hysteria-preserving, some remarkably intact artifacts have recently been found as a Norwegian glacier melts. These date to the late Iron Age and their most unusual state of preservation shows that the glaciation must have happened rather suddenly about 500AD.

    This was a period of major climate change, causing the migration of thousands of Germanic people from northern European climes, including the movement of Angles, Saxons and Jutes into eastern Britain.

    In other words, if it were not for even this one episode of climate change we would not be using the English language here today for the English language would likely not exist. Thus, as a speaker of a Celtic language from the British Isles, I can honestly blame climate change for the loss of prestige for speaking anything Celtic!

  49. “In the meanwhile, I’ve earned a master’s of art in teaching secondary science. I still find students who don’t believe in evolution, and in some quarters, natural selection remains controversial, but absolutely nobody — not teachers, not students, not scholars — seriously denies climate change any more.”

    Thus states a puffed up pompous bloviator who has never accomplished real science.
    They self promote themselves as worthy to judge real scientists like Dr. Lindzen and Dr. Curry.

    Basing their claim on consensus as the driver for science while denying the role of questioning and skepticism that rule the practice of science.

  50. Imagine if the crew and passengers on this ship of fools named “Climate Change” had been around when the glaciers melted as we came out of this last Ice Age (ain’t we still coming out of it?)…the very real warming that did that would have driven them crazy – even crazier than they are now, since their reaction to the approximately 0.06 C degrees/decade warming over the last century and a half or so is so extreme…

    I’m not a scientist but have a turn of mind like I’m from Missouri (Show Me), plus I have common sense and the ability to analyze things logically, as well as a wide range of scientific and technical hobbies – amateur naturalist, astronomy, botany, biology, geology, microscopy, to name a few – my profession was a software engineer, BSCS from the early days, with much too much math for my liking – and I believe in the scientific method. So just knowing what little I know, and being naturally skeptical, I am yet to be persuaded that many of the basic claims about “global warming” and “climate change” are true and proven, and that none of the more outlandish ones hold water – especially since it’s all painted as being Man’s “fault” even though things are getting better overall, not worse, and since the rate of change is so slow we’d have to be idiots not to be able to cope with it and adapt, even if we accept the sloppy shoddy “science” and the fraudulent data changing.

    The ideas that CO2 is a pollutant, and that it’s the temperature control knob for the planet, and that humans must reduce and control “Carbon”…are so ridiculous that I don’t know if I should laugh or cry.

    The whole thing, even if it’s not a scam, is just made to order for the gullible and the con men and women who prey on them. There seem to be a lot of both predator and prey associated with the scam…

  51. “ virtually no credentialed scientist does not think that climate change is man-made and will, on the whole, have deleterious effects on us and our world.”

    This second-rate mind sits in judgement of Richard Lindzen. Disgusting.

  52. Many of the people dropped believe that more CO2 increases temperature, but not as much as the alarmists.

Comments are closed.