Climate Wars: Try Removing the Word “Denier” from a Wikipedia Entry

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A few days ago Dr. Willie Soon pointed out on the social media site Parler that it is impossible to remove the term “Denier” from the Wikipedia entry for Sallie Baliunas.

I should have stated more clearly the big problem in Wiki related to William Connolley; the tyrant at Wiki

None of us can correct for the entries calling us climate change deniers: start with Robert Carter and Sallie Baliunas.

Source: Parler / Willie Soon

Baliunas’ Wikipedia description contains the line “Baliunas is a denier in regard to there being a connection between CO2 rise and climate change, saying in a 2001 essay with Willie Soon …”

So I decided to perform an experiment. As a long standing if infrequent Wikipedia editor, I updated Sallie’s Wikipedia entry to read “Baliunas disputes there being a connection between CO2 rise and climate change, saying in a 2001 essay with Willie Soon …”, and added an explanation to Sallie’s talk page (a secondary page associated with all Wikipedia pages, where people can leave comments).

Removed the word “denier”

People who dispute the connection between climate change and CO2 find the word “denier” offensive, many climate skeptics believe “climate denier” is an attempt to link the concept of disputing the consensus to “holocaust denial”. Is it really necessary to use the term “denier”? By all means describe the views of other scientists of this position, but surely it does no harm to avoid using a term which the subject of the article might take to be a deliberate antagonism.

Wikipedia editor Hob Galding (Hob admits this is a pseudonym) changed the entry back the next day, and offered the following explanation.

They find it offensive? So what? I find their existence offensive, but I don’t expect them to do anything about it. They exist, I am offended, end of story. And they? People call them deniers, they are offended, end of story? No, they keep whining that people recognize them for what they are. They are still deniers. It is the correct term used for such people. It is the term used in reliable sources. —Hob Gadling (talk) 11:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

I responded with some examples demonstrating attempts to link disagreeing with the alleged climate consensus to holocaust denial.

Disappointed Hob. Is it the goal of Wikipedia to be deliberately provocative and offensive towards the subjects of Wikipedia posts, for the crime of holding an unfashionable scientific view? Is the penalty for having the wrong scientific theory to be smeared as being comparable to those who deny that NAZIs murdered millions of Jewish people? There are a number of examples of academics or prominent journalists comparing or linking the idea of “climate denial” to “Holocaust denial”:

“The deniers of climate change are cut from the same cloth as Holocaust deniers. They’ve never been to the death camps, Auschwitz and Birkenau, so what they haven’t seen does not exist. The global warming deniers—the Koch brothers, for example—see only what they want to see.”[1]

“Instead of dishonouring the deaths of six million in the past, climate deniers risk the lives of hundreds of millions in the future. Holocaust deniers are not responsible for the Holocaust, but climate deniers, if they were to succeed, would share responsibility for the enormous suffering caused by global warming.”[2]

“Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.”[3]

Regardless of the original intent or meaning, the term “denier” in the context of “climate denial” has become inextricably associated with the NAZI holocaust, thanks to its use by prominent journalists and academics. Its use in Wikipedia, against victims who are powerless to remove this label, whose crime is to hold an unfashionable scientific viewpoint, is just a form of bullying. Eric Worrall (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

1.  Charles R. Larson, Professor Emeritus, Washington University

2. Clive Hamilton / Hamilton: Denying the coming climate holocaust

3. George Monbiot / Almost everywhere, climate change denial now looks as stupid and as unacceptable as Holocaust denial.

I obtained these quotes from a longer list published on WUWT in 2014.

Someone spoke up in support of my point;

On 20 January 2020 Wiki5537821 changed “skeptic” to “denier” without explanation in the edit summary. It would be nice to see one. The reference later in the paragraph to a 2002 article, which should be linked to here rather than the current dead link, says things like “that exceedingly small positive trend is probably not the result of human activities”, i.e. Ms Baliunas believed there is warming and “probably” is a skeptical remark not a denial. Hob Gadling has re-inserted “denier” without seeking consensus first, and so far doesn’t have it — although I’m not interested in the WP:LABEL aspect that Eric Worrall seems to be alluding to, I agree that the earlier wording was better. Peter Gulutzan (talk) 15:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

“Hob” provided the following response;

I don’t think “capitalismmagazine” is a reliable source for scientific subjects. —Hob Gadling (talk)

15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Boo hoo, poor anti-science loons, being compared with anti-history loons. See here: the section “no neutral POV” is pretty much the same as sections in Talk pages about climate change deniers. Like identical twins!As I said, we say what reliable sources say, and they call it “denial”. Denialism is a thing, and climate change denial is a big part of it. Don’t blame Wikipedia for common usage. Wikipedia does not pander to fringe groups: we do not call evolution “just a theory” because creationists are offended if we don’t, and we do not claim acupuncture is science because quacks are offended if we don’t. Read WP:LUNATIC.Climate change denial is not just “unfashionable”. That is not how science works. It is indefensible. If you want to be treated like real scientists, behave like real scientists. Do not just steal e-mails, cherry-pick quotes, cherry-pick data, cherry-pick studies, cherry-pick scientists, accuse innocent scientists of fraud, harrass them with legal shenanigans, bribe politicians, and so on. All the despicable methods deniers use have earned them the word “denier”. Instead, do real research, without any dirty tricks, and publish it in bona-fide scientific journals. (Of course, this will not work, since you are wrong and the data are against you, but it would be the honest way to do it, the way that does not get you called “denier”.) —Hob Gadling (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Maybe this story will have a happy ending. The Wikipedia community might ultimately decide that “denier” (aka “holocaust denier”) is too loaded a term to use to describe a scientist who disagrees with their colleagues.

But as Hob explained, Wikipedia community guidelines have a backdoor clause which provides cover for those who enjoy using loaded language and revel in repeating academic insults. Under the rules, “Hob”, hiding behind the anonymity of a pseudonym, is allowed to use nasty pejorative terms in Wikipedia, providing a “reliable source” (as defined by the Wikipedia community) has already used such terms in public to attack the target of their slur;

BLPs [biographies of Living Persons] should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subjects, and in some circumstances what the subjects have published about themselves. Summarize how actions and achievements are characterized by reliable sources without giving undue weight to recent events. Do not label people with contentious labelsloaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. Instead use clear, direct language and let facts alone do the talking. BLPs should not have trivia sections.

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons

Wikimedia Foundation (Wikipedia’s parent organisation) states “Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.”.

However as Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger points out, one of the core policies designed to support this ideal, the policy of Neutral Point of View, died out a long time ago, and was replaced by “the utterly bankrupt canard” of avoiding “false balance” (h/t Charles).

Wikipedia Is Badly Biased

MAY 14, 2020|IN WIKIKNOWLEDGEINTERNET|BY LARRY SANGER

Wikipedia’s “NPOV” is dead.1 The original policy long since forgotten, Wikipedia no longer has an effective neutrality policy. There is a rewritten policy, but it endorses the utterly bankrupt canard that journalists should avoid what they call “false balance.”2 The notion that we should avoid “false balance” is directly contradictory to the original neutrality policy. As a result, even as journalists turn to opinion and activism, Wikipedia now touts controversial points of view on politics, religion, and science. Here are some examples from each of these subjects, which were easy to find, no hunting around. Many, many more could be given.

Read more: https://larrysanger.org/2020/05/wikipedia-is-badly-biased/

Wikipedia’s apparent betrayal of their founding ideal will likely be their downfall. As editors become bolder in venting their personal prejudices, under the guise of avoiding “false balance”, a growing number of Wikipedia’s target audience will become alienated by Wikipedia community’s intolerance.

“Imagine a world in which every single human being can freely share in the sum of all knowledge.” – without the bullying and hate speech.

Update (EW) h/t Willie Soon – William Connolly has mentioned Sallie Baliunas in a post. His take appears to be that the use of the word “denier” to describe Baliunas was appropriate, once the reference was updated.

199 thoughts on “Climate Wars: Try Removing the Word “Denier” from a Wikipedia Entry

    • Oh, what a bunch of spoiled brats they are!!!! No one has said that the CLIMATE doesn’t change. It does, but since we’ve been in a prolonged warm period, beginning with the MELTBACK of the Wisconsin ice sheet (see geological evidence, Hob, you dodo) and the WARM periods are ALWAYS followed by COLD periods — ALWAYS, ALWAYS, ALWAYS – there’s a clear indicator here that Hob and his ilk are afraid they’ll lose MONEY (and attention, too) if they can’t get everyone to agree with them.

      I’ve run into some who insist vehemently that hot weather causes snow to fall late in the spring, e.g., April 30.

      It’s a real shame that Those People can’t differentiate between weather (the short term) and climate (the LONG term), which is their loss. Not mine, not yours – THEIRS. All the charts and graphs in the world won’t convince them that they’re way off the mark, so here’s my suggestion: when crops fail and they want you to feed them, give them cake to eat. And when their heating bills rise exponentially and they have to run the heating system until mid-June (as I did, and I’m WAY south of the North Pole), and they start complaining, just yawn, nod and move on, laughing.

      • “Hob’s” rant has sealed Wikipedia’s fate in my book. I have used them as a reference in discussions and emails when it seemed appropriate. Not anymore. I’m boycotting, starting today. No more wikipedia references to be used as a way to explain anything on any topic.

        Boycott Wikipedia!!!

          • They need to be told loudly. Hob’s comments show clear bias. He should be banned from editing. His own description of himself is his interest in “science and pseudoscience”, and the cruel irony that he doesn’t see the pseudo in climate science is beyond belief. This isn’t news, but at least something was done about Connolley.
            I have resisted referring to wikipedia, but they show up on searches for everything. So now and then it seems appropriate because so many others read it.
            As Eric said “Wikipedia’s apparent betrayal of their founding ideal will likely be their downfall. As editors become bolder in venting their personal prejudices, under the guise of avoiding “false balance”, a growing number of Wikipedia’s target audience will become alienated by Wikipedia community’s intolerance. ”
            I’m alienated, and ready to openly advocate against them, not just passively resist. Using their own words to explain to anyone who will listen, they will lose legitimacy on a wider scale. What little they have had.

          • Agreed.
            If anyone quotes Wiki to me I respond that I Never use it until they become honest with climate.

          • That sort of response (‘Hob’s’) from someone responsible for the integrity of Wikipedia entries is unfortunate. That attitude (that he, or anyone else fro that matter, is not accountable for THEIR influence on content will quickly destroy Wikipedia. With no credibility they are useless.

          • Climate isn’t the only thing they are dishonest regarding.
            They are openly re-writing history, and completely distorting any subject having to do with economics.

          • Wikipedia is useful for anything that isn’t politically loaded.

            Alas, as government gets larger and its purview expands, those areas are becoming fewer by the day.

            Presumably, as “Hob” is a pseudonym, his views take no precedence over anyone else on Wiki, so why can’t people who object to the word “denier” not keep changing it to a less loaded term?

            It’s a dull and repetitive task, but so is much in life.

        • Wikipedia has always been “the abomination that causes misinformation”. It’s inherent in the setup.

    • Take away the warmunist’s ability to smear those they can’t engage with facts, and they won’t have much left. Probably why they defend the tactic so jealously.

    • Worse than Newspeak, they are belittling the holocaust by comparing scientific discourse with holocaust denial, which is anti-semitic hate speech. To regain any credibility and respect, Wiki should have prosecuted and banned such editors long ago.

    • When I was in college a generation ago citing Wikipedia was a big no no, even though that was the place where everyone went. Today, colleges fully embrace citing Wikipedia. That tells me everything that I need to know. In my opinion, Wikipedia is a lot worse than it was back then even though back then using it was frowned upon. Anything controversial has been stripped or clouded by other information, so it’s pretty much a useless source

  1. Wikipedia is also hopelessly tied to supporting Chinese propaganda. As such the Climate Scam serves the Chinese Communist Party’s larger purpose to destroy the West via economic means rather than military confrontation.

    Another instance of how Wikipedia is hopelessly controlled by China: On Wikipedia, the Dalai Lama, you will find an accurate description of who he is and today, but what you will not find is an accurate description of how the Chinese communist government attempts to persecute him and anyone who tries to legitimize his position in the Tibetan people. You will not find a Wikipedia description of how China attempts to use diplomatic pressure to stop the Dalai Lama from meeting with foreign government leaders in the US President.

    • “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.” – Albert Einstein

      There are more than 25 credible disproofs of the climate-and-green-energy scam, but as Einstein said, one would be enough. The CAGW/climate crisis was never real – it was always a false narrative, concocted by the extreme-left to achieve their political objectives.

      The left lie all the time – it is their core competence.

  2. When I am called a denier, I just call them a climate extortionist, and if its in public and they are educated with some form of Masters or Phd degree, I call them a Cracker Jack Box pseudoscientist. Then all the yelling starts and their event has gone down the tubes as far any decorum goes. If they want to act civil, with civil language, I will too. If they don’t, then it is CHAOS. Fight fire with fire. Which is ironic, when all the fires a few years back, there was a public meeting about how to safeguard communities, and some idiot scientist got up and started talking this will all due to climate change and he/they got shouted down for the entire meeting by over half the attendees. And I didn’t even have to start it. They left with their tails between their legs. But then I live in Redneck Country, and we don’t take no crap from anyone.

    • In Redneck Country our BS meters are always on. Every time a climate alarmist speaks, he/she/it pegs my BS meter.

    • Wikipedia’s obvious bias in favor of the CAGW meme, to the extent of allowing editor William Connolley free reign to change or delete entries he personally found objectionable, was the sole reason that over a decade ago I ceased my voluntary contributions to this once-honorable organization. However, Connolley’s actions grew so objectionable that even Wikipedia was eventually forced to banish him as an editor, at least temporarily (see https://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/ ).

      It would not surprise me at all that Connolley is back at his old tricks, masquerading under the pseudonym of “Hob Gadling”. As the old adage goes “By their acts, ye shall know them.”

      Eric Worrall’s article above confirms that I made the right decision over a decade ago, and there is no reason at all for me to give them money today.

      • I’m tempted to give them a donation of one penny, with a note saying: Your extreme bias isn’t even worth this much.

      • Amen, Gordon!

        Never mind that prior to the 1980s, alarmists were viewed askance, akin to street prophets of impending doom.

        Questioning science was the standard and requires that proponents of theories prove their assertions.
        Scientific proof requires verifiable transparent independent replication; as Einstein stated

        “No amount of experimentation can ever prove me right; a single experiment can prove me wrong.”

        Wiki is desperately afraid that science will return to requiring continual replicable proof. Especially since the CO₂ climate control knob is still unproven theory which fails every attempt to prove clearly CO₂’s effects on temperature.

      • Gordon

        The main motivation for creating an “identitarian” argument, as Hob has done, is to place group identity above individual identity with the intention to do something nefarious.

        Note the explanation above that “deniers”, variously described, are accused as a group to having perpetrated a set of singular acts in service of some unstated goal which that asserted group intends to achieve.

        Jordan Peterson is very clear on the importance of recognising the difference between an individual’s identity and their behaviour and responsibility, and that of a group. Identity politics declares that the group identity is more important than the individual one, that you are always first defined as a member of a group for the principal purpose of accusing the group of doing something that is difficult to lay at the feet of any member individually.

        Quote: “All the despicable methods deniers use have earned them the word “denier”.”

        This accusation is used to identify an individual as a “group member” so they can be subjected to the punishment ostensibly due to the group. It is like witch-sniffing: if you can declare a person a witch on an grounds, and witches are to be killed as a group, there is no need to have trial for that particular witch to identify an appropriate punishment.

        Note the litany of offensive behaviours Hob thinks the group has “committed” such as independent investigation into the elements of the climate, exposure of dishonest scientists and flawed computer models that are never right. Hob groups everyone exposing the climate alarmist misbehaviour and misconceptions as being members if a single group Hob calls “deniers”, and defends the admittedly pejorative label as “having been earned” without a trial. More witch-sniffing.

        Hob holds has been “earned” by attribution – Hob simply attributes to the individuals an intention or act Hob also attributes to the group, as if attribution is evidence. Attribution is not evidence any more than a model output is data.

        Then Hob essentially declares that Willie Soon, as a member of that group, is also deserving of the pejorative label as an individual. More witch-sniffing.

        The hollowness of Hob’s argument is apparent: The group “deniers” is attributed to exist, the offences are attributed to the group first, Willie Soon is attributed to be a member of the group, and therefore in Hob’s logic, any pejorative name attributable to the group is attributable to Willie.

        This the intention of identity politics – where Willis Soon is arbitrarily declared (by someone else) to first be a group member, then to be “guilty” of any “sin” that has been attributed to the group and to carry the burden the group deserves: the inevitable outcome of witch trials.

        This is the core of debased reasoning and violent actions behind the greatest massacres of the 20th Century. This debasement of logic and science is what we are fighting against. Lear to recognise it.

        Some find it safer to hide behind the perceived majority rather than to stand for science. It takes courage not to.

        I empathize with Willie Soon on this matter. What Wikipedia is allowing is wrong, with their Uncle Toms, Hob-ley and all.

        https://www.theidioms.com/uncle-tom-cobley-and-all/

  3. “Denier” is a word. It is just a noun, and it has no sting beyond the meaning of the object or idea it represents. I do deny the theory of catastrophic climate change. I am a catastrophic climate change denier. No one is calling me a Holocaust denier and it is silly to think that anyone is.

    Michael Mann molests data. He’s a molester. See how easy this is? See how much fun?

    Jeffrey Epstein was a philanthropist. Adolph Hitler was a chancellor. Donald Duck habitually appeared in public with no pants on. Context and reasonable analysis trump words, so let’s not get too excited about the words.

    • “let’s not get too excited about the words.”

      yup

      but it does give you a good excuse not to do science

        • No, John. Steven is right on this. The “Climate Science” community has used words, not least this word, as an excuse not to do science for at least 20 years. The taxpayer forks out large sums for them to play computer games and call it “research”.

          • Not exactly the direction the drive-by king was aiming for, Newminster, but good point on your part.

      • Steven Mosher, I am a scientist who denies there is a detectable CAGW signal viewed against natural variation, and believe therefor that the CAGW theory is not only questionable but unproven. I have done good science my whole career, and have the results to prove it. You?

        • “. . . not only questionable but unproven.” CAGW theory may well be questionable. I certainly believe that it is. However, it cannot be proven to be true. It can only be proven to be false.

          • But the way in which the true believers alter both the data and the predictions that they derive from that data means that it may take another fifty or more years before the GAGW hypothesis can be disproved to the satisfaction of the masses.

      • “but it does give you a good excuse not to do science”

        Yes, the alarmists and climate “troughers”, do take that route, don’t they. !

        Just calling someone a “denier” leaves them free to avoid producing any actual real science.

        Are you a climate “trougher”, Mosh, you certainly act like one.

      • Is this the same snowflake who was crying about being called an ‘alarmist’?

        Sorry, Mosh – all I hear from the left is how words count – and the ‘d’ word is ON-PURPOSE.

      • “it does give you a good excuse not to do science”

        Sure. One day the alarmists will come to realize that results from GCMs isn’t science but unfortunately it wont be an epiphany, its going to be scientists dying off one at a time.

    • RE: “let’s not get too excited about the words.” see the story from recently in Indianapolis, Indiana, where a young (24 years old) mother, Jessica Doty Whitaker, was shot dead by Black Lives Matter for saying “All Lives Matter”. Where does this denier/all lives matter speech end?

      • Where does this denier/all lives matter speech end?

        It ends where the most blood has been spilled on the streets.

        And that won’t happen until Law Enforcement personnel start “shooting back” with intent to kill.

        • Where are the Well Regulated Militias? That was the real intent of the 2nd Amendment, when it was written, to protect from foreign and domestic enemies. If the Police and National Guard can’t/aren’t/won’t going to do it, then it is time for the well regulated militias to do it. It will be a very brief affair. If the Police would have just taken out the first half dozen fire bombers throwing Molotov cocktails the first night, none of this looting and burning would have happened. It was the cowardice of Democrat legislators and bureaucrats that allowed this to happen. Not much of this happened in rural Montana, Idaho, or South Dakota because the locals would have taken care of business immediately.

          • “If the Police would have just taken out the first half dozen fire bombers throwing Molotov cocktails the first night, none of this looting and burning would have happened. It was the cowardice of Democrat legislators and bureaucrats that allowed this to happen.”

            I agree with that. Weakness invites attacks, whether on the domestic stage or the international stage.

            We need some new laws. We need to charge anyone who throws a lethal object at police with attempted murder.

            Police should be allowed to shoot (with rubber bullets, first) any person who attempts to hit a police officer with a lethal object.

            Violence against police officers cannot be condoned in any form. If we don’t have a viable police force, then we don’t have a viable society. It’s as simple as that. Anyone who promotes doing away with policing is a dangerous fool. Don’t listen to dangerous fools like the radical Democrats.

            And btw, the news media likes to point out the hatred aimed at police officers. What they didn’t show is how Tulsa, Oklahoma treated its police officers the other day. Two Tulsa police officers were shot last week during a traffic stop (the perp was white, so that’s why no national tv coverage) and one of the police officers died, and the other was shot in the head and lived, but has a long recovery to go through.

            Tulsa had a fund-raising event for the two officers a couple of days ago and they set up a place where people could drive through and give a donation and traffic was backed up all day long for miles waiting to get into the donation area and more than $500,000 was contributed to the two police officer’s families.

            Police officers are highly respected in Oklahoma. If you are a police officer living in an unfair environment, you might consider moving to Oklahoma. We know how to treat the people who protect us right. We appreciate them.

          • Anything associated with militias has been culturally attacked and vilified for many decades. Also recognize all the terms used constantly by the media/educators/politicians to pacify/disarm the public — lovey-dovey 1960s terms like tolerance, kindness, just get along, etc, etc, etc. All the while as they infiltrate and destroy our culture and country right before our eyes.

          • I fear you are incorrect on this issue. The second amendment comes from the privileges and immunities of British Subjects, coming through the declaration of rights of 1688. Even a cursory reading of the chapter called “On the absolute rights of the British Subject’ in Blackstone’s commentaries refutes the view of a solely militia nexus to the right. One of those rights of the British subject, the right to keep and bear arms in case the crown ever became destructive to their other rights, was the impetus behind the revolution itself.
            This is ignoring treaty law back into the 13th century allowing British subjects in Portugal to keep and bear arms, and the court cases surrounding the 1830s regarding Prudence Crandall, who was teaching freeborn black girls how to read. The argument at that time was that the right to keep and bear arms would belong to them if they were actually citizens, and that no other state, once recognized, could revoke it, therefore no person of that ancestry could be a citizen. The right to keep and bear arms was recognized as an individual right up until it became inconvenient in the 1870s, in another slavery case pertaining to Dred Scott v. Sandvford.
            British records in the war of 1812 described the American militia as strictly volunteers, without uniform, providing their own weapons, powder, and ball. They were civilian irregulars.
            Prefacatory clauses do not modify the operative clause beyond stating why the operative clause exists> The operative clause is that the rightof the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
            This was fought over in the pro-slavery south after the civil war and turned into a meme, licensing the right to keep and bear arms only to staunch democratic supporters and KKK members, claiming that only the militia had the right at that point, and simultaneously claiming once the militias were dissolved that they still had the right to keep and bear arms protected by the 14th… but not for those ex-slaves.
            McDonald v. Chicago and DC v Heller covered much of this history. It’s curious that those who would ban arms would ignore it.

          • I’m sure the Founding Fathers smiled when the term ‘well regulated militia’ was proffered as part of the 2nd Amendment! The ‘militias’ of that time were as many of the locals with guns, powder, and ball that could be rounded up on short notice to support necessary actions!

            We have seen ‘militias’ take active stands here in Washington state, during this period of terrorist attacks and looting. Several smaller cities down town areas were actively patrolled by high visibility armed squads of 3-4 citizens each. When the wannabe looters showed up, the intimidation factor alone was enough to make them look for easier pickings else where.
            https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/armed-citizens-form-group-to-protect-businesses-in-tri-cities/ar-BB14YTDM

        • oz
          There was no outcry because in the eyes of the MSM (and other leftists) ONLY Black lives matter.

    • “Denier” is a word. It is just a noun, and it has no sting beyond the meaning of the object or idea it represents.

      Fine. You’re a maroon….

      • There is a clear difference between denying what has happened and denying what will happen.

        What has happened – history – is a fact. There is evidence to see.
        What will happen is a theory (or a hypothesis). It my be justifiably believed. But there is no direct evidence.

        The reason people try to confuse the reality of the past with the possibility of the future is that they want to cast doubt on the certainty of what happened.

        Hob is clearly a Holocaust Denier..

    • ‘No one is calling me a Holocaust denier and it is silly to think that anyone is. ‘

      Yes – they are. By design – by the ‘words count’ crowd. It is utter blithering, apologist idiocy to suggest otherwise.

    • Ian
      A rather famous science fiction writer once made the point that words do matter as to how they affect the reader. He asked whether you would like to have a “bloody segment of muscle tissue from a castrated bull,” or a “rare-cooked steak,” perhaps with onions and mushrooms? It is the appropriate selection of words, and their grammatical construction, that distinguishes an influential writer from a hack that no one pays attention to. If words do not offend, then why are certain four-letter words disapproved of in polite society, and some even prohibited by the FCC? Why does society recognize “fighting words?” There was a time when the word “gay” meant something very different, before it was appropriated by the activist homosexual community. One might defend the use of the word “gay” in reference to someone based on its original meaning. However, one shouldn’t be surprised if the person referred to is offended. Remember, “The pen is mightier than the sword.”

    • Words have meaning, therefore they have power. Every important social change in the history of mankind started with words. It may be a book, a document (like the US Constitution), or a rousing speech. It may even be as simple as, “Never again”, or “Remember the Alamo”. Never underestimate the power of even a single word.

      • “Words have power.”

        Sometimes they do, when they’re reasonable words backed up with truth. Not so otherwise. Here’s an example where words have no real power, but in order to further a cause the perception of power is created:

        https://tinyurl.com/p5hsr29

        The word “denier” is a pathetic ad hominem dog whistle buzz word applied in an attempt to shore up the jello foundation of CAGW. First it was “Global Warming,” then the narrative wasn’t working anymore so THAT had to be changed to “Climate Change.”

        If you’ve got to continue rebranding your product because no one is buying it then your product is crap.

        That’s all “they’ve” got is words and skeery software models that by the IPCC’s own admission can’t possibly predict the future possible states of the climate. No real science. “They” know it and thus anti-science unintellectual hacks like Mann, “Hob Galding,” et al., use it to attack the man and not the argument.

        I mean, look at what Wiki’s done now that Eric objected to the term? Now they’ve replaced “denier” with “climate change denial” and linked that phrase to their page on how to do a textbook consensus gentium for climate change fallacy.

        They’re clearly idiots. Who cares what they think?

  4. No surprises here Eric.
    Wasn’t there a climategate email where The Team vowed to keep challenging research papers from being published, even if they had to redefine what peer review is?

  5. What does anyone “deny” that they have hard physical measured data for ?

    All climate data points to a slight warming from the coldest period in 10,000 years.

    No significant change in ANY of the other major “climate” factors. eg , storms, hurricanes, accelerated SLR, extreme weather etc etc etc

    Even the slight by barely significant (if that) real warming is most probably from UHI and solar effects.

    • Interesting..

      where is mosh to provide this hard physical measured data

      Not one piece forthcoming

      EMPTY !!

      They produce absolutely nothing to DENY. !!

  6. They may as well say that people DENY the Grimm Bros fairy tales !

    It would be just as meaningful.

  7. Wikipedia has asked me for money to support them. i have in the past sometimes done so. Never again. And next time they ask me, they will get a very specific reason why. If they monitor Wattsupwiththat , they could save themselves the trouble by removing me from their mailing list.

  8. Many topics in Wikipedia have their own posses to protect them. In many cases they are mostly volunteers, but there is nothing to stop funding hired guns. The coverage of China is very likely an example of the latter.

    If someone wants better coverage in Wikipedia, it can be bought.

    • Or someone should just create a new citizen directed encyclopedia, but have it have a ‘constitution’ that all points of view will be allowed, within limits of civil decency and factual basis, or allow opposing points of view and list it as such so that legitimate voices aren’t silenced. Maybe make Wikipedia irrelevant and much worse than a new site could offer, which would effectively put it out of business or make it obvious that some if it is biased information.

      Wikipedia has evolved into precisely what it was originally against, which is very unfortunate because much of Wikipedia is very good. It used to be rated higher than Encyclopædia Britannica. If I want to study the Periodic Table or Milankovitch Cycles, I want to assume it isn’t biased, but somehow they politicize climate science, or as Joel says, the whole issue with China and Tibet, for e.g. has been politicized by China or their lapdogs. Just the start of a new website would probably be enough to force Wiki to accommodate all points of view. This ‘editing’ feature by trolls will destroy Wikipedia.

      • P.S. I will donate $1000 to this cause if a few dozen others want to also match that, and we get a site started expressed stated to counter the mis-information and libel that Wikipedia does to climate science. Details TBA…but that will be the header on this new site, that Wikipedia has become corrupted in many subject categories and hence this new Online Encyclopedia. I think there is also something untoward about the founder Jimmy Wales…that could also be one the first detailed entries.

        From Wikipedia about Wikipedia: “The site is run by the community of Wikipedians guided by the principles articulated by Jimmy Wales, including, for example, an adherence to a neutral point of view.”

        Must be a cruel joke.

  9. I have never met a climate change denier, not one.
    Everyone able to think, understands climate changes. It always did and always will, the millions of years of evidence speaks to that.
    What is happening now, in the current climate alarmist community is the evidence and it’s growing evidence, points to the climate change being a feature of natural variation and not a man made event. The periods of climate change that took place prior to mans’ existence confirms that is true.
    The consequence of that growing evidence and increasing awareness in the public, that climate change happens without the need to invoke some man made input, is frustrating the ambitions of the climate alarmists. They want and need the climate concerns they advance/promote, to be accepted as “real” because it is their fear mechanism needed for societal change.
    The term climate denier was purposely chosen by the alarmists, because of its negative connotations and is desperately needed by them, because they have little to no scientific credibility. It enables them to appear morally on the right side of the climate debate, which of course is no longer debated, because to do so would again introduce doubt into people’s minds that “man made climate change” isn’t real.
    Thankfully help is at hand.
    The march of the Michaels’ is destroying the foundations on which the climate alarmists have built their false structures. The first destructive Michael was of course Hockey Stick Mann. His false conclusions have done more damage to the climate alarmists, that they could possibly sustain. His sterling efforts have been followed in recent months by the alarmist’s other previously adored Michaels’, Moore and Schellenberger. The alarmists are being torn apart by their own above reproach supporters. The alarmists need to keep denying the truth, that the climate realists have been providing, this past thirty years. The climate alarmists, are the real deniers!
    The truth will out.

    • Aren’t people who want to prevent climate from changing real climate change deniers?

  10. The term “deny” has the connotation of not accepting a known fact. I do not deny that the climate is changing (it always has), but I am skeptical of the theory that most or all of the changes over the last 50 to 100 years are caused by human activity. There is not sufficient objective evidence that this is a fact. “That which can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence” (Christopher Hitchens). Science requires skepticism. No denial is involved.

    • “The term “deny” has the connotation of not accepting a known fact. ”

      Correct. That is why the term ‘denier’ is egregious: it conflates denial of fact with divergence of opinion. What will happen in the future is not fact. To disagree with forecasts of doom is not denial of fact. It is divergence of opinion. Alarmists conflate the two.

    • “The term “deny” has the connotation of not accepting a known fact.”

      No, that’s its denotation (literal meaning). Its connotation (its suggestive aura or baggage) is of an irrational / dishonest refusal to see a plain but inconvenient truth. E.g., “He’s in denial about his alcoholicm.”

      • PS: The AP style book recommends “doubter” in place of “denier.” This is what the Wikipedia editor Hob should be told. That’s the conventional / neutral term.

        (But “doubter” is to wishy-washy. We are disputers or “climate contrarians” or (ironically) deviationists or heretics.)

  11. That guy “Hob” is completely triggered by Soon’s argument (don’t usually like that term, but it seems to fit admirably because it is exactly how safe-space craving, monument hating liberal snowflakes behave). The rage on display can only come from someone who has a hatred of the skeptical position (rather than mere disagreement). The irony is that everything Hob accuses “deniers” of doing – eg cherry picking data – is done by consensus scientists. There will be another irony in the future when it is finally acknowledged by the (next generation of) scientists that it was the CO2 believers who were actually deniers – deniers of natural variability. And how silly they will look. I hope this Hob is young enough to live to see it.

    • I did consider taking it further, but given the level of bias on Wikipedia taking it further seems an unproductive use of my time. I achieved what I set out to do – to test Dr. Soon’s assertion that it is impossible to correct some Wikipedia entries.

      • Eric,
        Wise decision. Those who are on the “long march” can not be stopped by concerned well wishers standing in their way, trying to warn them of their errors and dangers in their direction. They must be allowed to march on “through the institutions” towards their eventual doom and collective destructive understanding at a place of their own choosing, and at their own hand.
        We need do no more, we have warned them of their folly, we have tried endlessly to point out their mistakes, they do not listen.
        Let them march on by, we tried to help them, but to no avail and with no thanks.
        Let them go.

      • It is always the principled person who makes an organization go through the appeal and arbitration process. you should read some of them for wikipedia.

        Back in the old days when skeptics were real workers guys like Steve mcintyre, J Jones, David Holland
        made CRU go through the appeal process. Some lost (Mc) Some won. Jones &Holland

        The point was not winning. The point was making sure the organization was forced to go through its proceess. And to show you were SINCERE in your desire to change things.

        Since it’s a Bio of a living person you do have some grounds to stand on, but you need to make a much less emotion case. Hob will NEVER win a wiffle bat ( google that ) and creating a record
        is always a good thing.

        I suspect you DON’T want to change it because you get milage out of victimhood.

        The principled thing to do is to follow the process to the bitter end. Like the giants of skeptcism did before you.

        • ‘I suspect you DON’T want to change it because you get milage out of victimhood.’

          You’re really a piece of self-serving trash, aren’t you?

    • As said above Mosher the data molester or just Mosher the molester take it to arbitration Steve.

    • “contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change”

      Thanks mosh, for pointing out to everyone that “climate change™” is NOT SCIENCE.

      Real science is nothing to do with consensus. and consensus has nothing to do with real science.

      There is a consensus among children that the Easter Bunny exists.

      • There is not and never has been a “consensus” on climate change.
        What there has been is a handful of individuals, who have unilaterally declared that anyone who disagrees with them isn’t a scientist.

        • There is a consensus. But it’s neither the 97% nor anywhere near as alarmist as activists claim

    • Arbitration is a lot like modern peer review. It involves gathering people who already agree with you in order to rubber stamp the position that enhances your individual pocket books.

      • Steve is only a mayor in his own fiction, just like he thinks he is a scientist. But he is a really nice guy and really good at some stuff. I am not a scientist either, nor do I play one on TV. But I do hope to get a degree from WUWT when I hit a million words, cause I pay myself a penny a word to donate to good causes that promote climate realism.

  12. “Do not just steal e-mails, cherry-pick quotes, cherry-pick data, cherry-pick studies, cherry-pick scientists, accuse innocent scientists of fraud, harrass them with legal shenanigans, bribe politicians, and so on. ”

    Peter Gleick come on down. 😉

  13. “Baliunas is a denier in regard to there being a connection between CO2 rise and climate change, saying in a 2001 essay with Willie Soon …”

    Sloppy English: it would suffice to say ‘denies the connection’.

    The vilification of Naomi Seibt on Wikipedia is another matter.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Naomi_Seibt

    Note also the wishy washy definition of ‘climate denial’: “unwarranted doubt that contradicts the scientific consensus on climate change”.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
    “Unwarranted” – who decides what’s warranted?

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

    • From Wakipedia:

      After calling Naomi Seibt a “climate change denier” they let her call herself a climate realist – they should have used “climate realist” in the first place at the beginning of the article !

      “Since May 2019, Seibt has recorded YouTube videos using her mobile phone[8] on topics ranging from “migration to feminism to climate change”, according to The Washington Post.[13] In them, she calls herself a “climate realist”.[14][15]”

      – JPP

  14. Even the Financial Times is getting calls to stop sceptics from posting comments. This was from an article today on the Antarctic:

    “The comments section to this article should be closed.
    Denying climate change is like denying the holocaust (except that the crime is still being perpetrated), spreading antisemitism, or spreading racial hatred.
    The FT regularly blocks commenting where the topic might trigger such comments, e.g. some reports about immigration.
    Reports about climate change should fall into the same category. Denying climate change is equal to encouraging a crime against humanity present and future. It is not a matter of opinion. It is wrong to give such an “opinion” a platform. “

    • “Denying climate change is equal to encouraging a crime against humanity present and future. It is not a matter of opinion.”
      Can’t argue with stupid.

  15. Agree with Rod that ‘alarmist’ is an adequate response. As in ‘in the UK the high temple of alarmism is the BBC’ or ‘the alarmist Climate Change Committee’ or ‘Michael Gove the alarmist minister’ or ‘the alarmist newspaper Guardian’. Keep plugging away. Hob’s insulting polemic is born of FEAR. The AGW case is collapsing and Hob will lose a lot of money .

  16. From the beginning when I use Wakapedia as a reference, I have always used the term Wakipedia, or sometimes Wakapedia.

    I looked up Michael E Mann on Wakipedia and just suppose I wanted to insert the term “climate alarmist” or climate change alarmist” after Michael Mann – I doubt anyone could do that !!!

    – JPP

  17. They find it offensive? So what? I find their existence offensive, but I don’t expect them to do anything about it. They exist, I am offended, end of story.

    Job Gadling is implying a death threat, but dancing around it semantically for denyability. Allowing “Hob” to deny that he’s a fascist thug.

  18. All that Wikipedia and their cohorts are achieving with this intellectual fraud is to make Holocaust denial more respectable. It was an entirely ridiculous position in the eyes of almost everybody 10 years ago, that is regrettably no longer so. It must also be said that this change has been partly facilitated by Israel, who only talk about the 6M Jews who died, and ignore the 6M others. They didn’t used to do that.

    Lobochevsky’s law applies in all things, not just science. He deserves the credit in this, and the blame.

  19. Maybe sceptics should turn the term around, and actually BOAST about being “Deniers”! Be proud and flaunt the label. Don’t play the Alarmists’ stupid games! They are exploiting our decency and good nature, and we should refuse to be shamed or cowed by them.

    • Agreed. Simply say, “Yes, I deny there is evidence for any impending catastrophe due to rising CO2.”

      Important corollary point: Computer models do not produce “evidence”. Only measurements in the real world constitute evidence. Computer models produce theoretical projections no better that the theories they are based on.

    • if ya’ll can decide what names are a gunna make you cry and agree on it as a group, that would be great

      • Still sore about John Endicott’s put-down?

        Why should we even bother with your opinion, Mosher?

        • Because he’s right in this case. Simply having the phrase “climate change denier” would be preferable (if one really even cares about Wiki – I personally don’t) than what’s there now.

          What it’s been replaced with is a bigger lie than before.

  20. I have observed throughout my life that it is a general principle that as soon as any movement, group or individual becomes influential, it is subverted and taken over by the forces of commerce, or political ideology.
    Why would they not?

    The unpleasant truth is also that these forces are now the same.

    In teh end corporate globalists and world government advocates both benefit from a mindless brainwashed citizenry whose options and buying choices can be dictated solely by a well planned and executed marketing campaign.

    Why would Wiki be any different? Its influential: It must be subverted. Even this blog is a target.

    • I was first aware of this phenomenon as Jerry Pournelle’s Iron Law of Bureaucracy. There is the view that attempts at democracy are futile. Iron Law of Oligarchy. Wikipedia itself is held up as this kind of subversion. link

      The framers gave us something like a democracy but with checks and balances to prevent the abuses that were abundantly clear from a study of history. link

      Thankfully, our framers were wiser than their French counterparts were. Drawing upon history from ancient Greece and Rome, John Adams warned posterity to “Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself.”
       
      Compatriot Benjamin Franklin likewise admonished: “Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote!” Thomas Jefferson agreed: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

      The Framers were bloody brilliant.

  21. Maybe the individual hiding behind “Hob” is a former Stasi official, who became unemployed after 1989 and loved his former occupation so much, that (s)he fell in love with the idea of using Wiki as the newborn Pravda.
    But “Hob” is probably a Pravda-Denier, who would justify any attempt to let Wiki serve as a media for social political correctional facility.

    In defense of Wiki I find it very useful, on some occasions, for information about subjects not yet turned political or of any interest to the Politburo.

    I tried to be an editor in the Danish area of Wiki 13 years ago, but they did not like me, after they found my website klimabedrag.dk (Only genuine skeptical site at the time in Denmark).

  22. I am not sure what happened but at least as of now the word “denier” is not present on the wikipedia page.
    So it would appear to be possible to change entries despite what is claimed here.

    • weather cooking

      Googled the phrase:
      ‘site:wikipedia.org “weather cooking”‘

      Result in DuckDuck:

      Yellowish green apple. Acid flavour, likes cooler weather. Cooking Lord Lambourne agm: …

      Conclusion:
      Wiki does not like that phrase 🙂

    • Yes – denial of fact.
      Either that or they claim that side-effects are not worth the benefits – divergence of opinion.

  23. “I don’t think ‘capitalismmagazine’ is a reliable source for scientific subjects.
    —Hob Gadling (talk) ”

    Broke my ironyometer.

  24. “None of us can correct for the entries calling us climate change deniers: start with Robert Carter and Sallie Baliunas.”

    What is wrong with being called “climate change deniers”?

    • What is wrong?
      Tell me what is right.
      I am a questioner and nobody at CAGW has answered my question:

      Show me ONE study that MEASURES warming caused by CO2.

      Waiting, waiting,…………………………………..

  25. “Hob” needs to grow up, but that can be said of many on the Left who think their “feelings” are facts.

    • It conflates fact with opinion. You can’t deny opinion. You can disagree with it. But opinion cannot be denied.

  26. I’m a “climate change denier” in the same way that I’m a “tooth fairy denier”. Hobs and his Climate Liar brethren have subverted language to suit their needs.
    “He who controls the language controls the masses”. –Saul Alinsky, Rules for Radicals.

  27. The solution is to not allow the ‘offenders’ to offend you. Don’t give them the satisfaction. I am, indeed, a denier, AND DAM# PROUD OF IT.

  28. When the discussion is about the meaning of words the original topic is lost.
    There is a spectrum even within the umbrella rubric “denier.”
    1) One “denier” believes there is a coming ice age by 2043.
    2) Another “denier” believes the weather changes over the last 60 year has been rising due to the Sun not mankind.
    3) Another “denier” believes there is a conspiracy between the UN and grant writers to promote a political agenda to take over the world with socialism.
    4) Yet another believes that the Sun will go micr-Nova soon and wipe out the sun-facing half the earth. If it happens to be the Pacific that is hit, a tidal waves wipes out all humanity from San Francisco to NYC. If China, that takes care of the China problem.
    5) Another “denier” believes that the ongoing magnetic pole shift will change the ionosphere so drastically that high concentrations of UV — not stopped by the shift — will yield an extinction event through mutations.
    6) Another believes that the current conjunction of planets (they _are_ mostly aligned) will yield catastrophe this year.
    Karen, BLM, Antifa and their ilk are all about the cancel culture of objecting to words. So what if it is an offensive term. Brown people should stop use of “black” because I find it offensive? Trump should stop with the rhetorical exaggeration; I find it offensive. I find it offensive that a former president, Obama, is active in current politics and not acting like an elder statesman.

    I deny some of the claims of the UN. I deny most of the claims of Greta. I deny the claims of AOC regarding CC. I deny the claims of Trump on a lot of non-climate-related claims. I deny the claims of Fauci in re pandemic.
    It is a perfectly good word.
    Can’t change Wiki? Who cares any more. Wiki went from joke to reliable because every statement was to be backed by referenced academic experts. And back to joke when they do not allow individuals to add their own opinions/thoughts to their own entry. (In a page about Old.George I should get to say: The above entry does not accurately reflect my opinions or views because .)
    Wiki was fine before it considered “news” to be, well, news, and not propaganda.

    • Speaking of AOC, yesterday she declared that the reason for the rising crime rate in NYC was because of hungry people stealing bread to feed their child. (Yes, she said child, not children. Let that sink in for a minute.)

      Another, when asked what her city would look like once the police are defunded declared, “The suburbs”.

      • MarkW
        Progressives are definitely out of touch with reality. That is why they are progressives.

      • AOC is a denier of Reality, as are the other members of her radical political party, the Democrats.

  29. Instead of trying to erase the term, as the progressives do, embrace it. Call yourself “a denier of the lies and propaganda of the climate creeps”. Come up with your own fun slogans embracing denier and make it clear you deny the lies and schemes of those that hate humans and societies.

  30. I’ve always wondered if creating a new Wikipedia platform would be of any benefit. However, thinking about it a little more, I don’t think so. It would start off well, as Wikipedia did, then just get overrun with people with pitchforks, globalist enterprises, and authoritarian governments. Even if it could be constrained to just Western countries, it wouldn’t have much of an effect.

    As this Hob person shows, the trolls will find their hovel and squat in it.

    • WUWT hasn’t, and can’t, because it is controlled by one person, including not for profit. The only way WUWT could be taken down is if Anthony gets Altimers or State Socialism/Marxism is implemented by a new Democrat sweep of all branches of Gov’t and then they could change start trying to change the Constitution, although that is a complicated process too, with the States having major input requiring 3/4 support from all states.

      From Goofle…

      “Currently, a proposed amendment must be passed by two-thirds of both houses of Congress, then ratified by the legislatures of three-fourths of the states.”

      “The Constitution, then, spells out four paths for an amendment: Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state conventions (never used) Proposal by convention of states, ratification by state legislatures (never used) Proposal by Congress, ratification by state conventions (used once)

  31. What is wrong with the word “denier”? He does deny the CO2 role in the warming.
    He is a denier.
    At the same time, a black person is a “n…” in many Latin languages
    Yet, some find the term rather offensive…

    • Make that any country that speaks Spanish.
      Unless the social justice warriors have gotten completely out of hand, type black, into any English to Spanish translator.

    • “What is wrong with the word “denier”? He does deny the CO2 role in the warming.”

      That (disbelief) is its denotation (literal meaning). Its connotation (its suggestive aura or baggage) is of an irrational / dishonest refusal to see a plain but inconvenient truth. E.g., “He’s in denial about his alcoholism.” That’s what’s wrong with “denier.”

    • “the CO2 role in the warming.”

      What role?

      Its never been measured or observed anywhere in the Earth’s atmosphere.

      Its like saying someone DENIES a Grimm Bros fairy tale..

      Being called a “denier” because you don’t believe someone else’s fantasy..

      NOPE. not accepting that.!!

  32. I have quit Scientific American, Discover, Time, Newsweek, etc. because they have all drunk deeply of the Hansen/Gore Koolaid. I am no scientist but have followed science my whole life. It does not take a genius to see clearly that politics has no place in science. “The science is settled” is utter denial of science.

    I am now also off of Wikipedia. Also off of Google. I use DuckDuckGo instead. I still use Google Earth, but would use an alternative if I could find one.

    The latest Amazon TV commercial touting their commitment to “renewable energy” has gotten me looking more at eBay and Walmart.

    • “Science News” was the first to go away for me way back in the ’80s. Even that far back it was getting infiltrated by marxist/regressive/dopacrapic writers.

  33. have quit Scientific American, Discover, Time, Newsweek, etc. because they have all drunk deeply of the Hansen/Gore Koolaid. I am no scientist but have followed science my whole life. It does not take a genius to see clearly that politics has no place in science. “The science is settled” is utter denial of science.

    I am now also off of Wikipedia. Also off of Google. I use DuckDuckGo instead. I still use Google Earth, but would use an alternative if I could find one.

  34. Calling someone a ‘denier’ is the easiest,dumbest way to attempt to get power over someone.
    Similar to calling someone a ‘racist’ without any demonstrable reason except they are white.
    Hob has issues methinks.

    • Paul
      What is more racist than denigrating someone just because of the color of their skin, white.

  35. I’ve spent entire lunch hours changing ‘denier’ to ‘skeptic’ on the Wiki WATTS page. Takes less than five minutes for it to change back.

  36. Hob apparently doesn’t understand evolution either. “…we do not call evolution “just a theory.”” Evolution is a complex of facts, theories, very few principles, not helped by evolutionists calling it a fact, when it is made up of numerous ones. Predictability is limited, as they say, especially about the future. Would check them out, but cannot stand too much nonsense in one day. I taught it for over a decade, fascinating and too important to censor and not allow skepticism.

  37. I used to be a regular Wikipedia editor, however the whole wiki admin team are biased to a certain view of the world (Alarmist in this subject), but someone at the top dictates that view, and still hide behind their T’s&C’s. Trouble is a lot of areas it a Work-In-Progress, but the admins must sometimes think there’s a ‘bible’ PoV; anyone can cherry-pick, but it depends if the tree or even the orchard is a ‘good’ or ‘bad’ one.
    Do they have a list of good book sources and who has the right to edit that list?
    There are areas I’m an expert in (not this Climate subject), clearly more so than the editors, and the books that are used to put a view forward a certain twisted view IMO, but unless you can quote a source in their ‘list’ it’s not always kept and very quickly reverted.
    Some of my edits have stuck (for now).

  38. I’ve read that there is a tendency on Wikipedia for right-wing dictators to be given that name, but for leftist dictators to be called “leaders.”

    • Wouldn’t a right-wing dictator enable the individual? That was what I thought the ‘Right’ was about, which is law abiding individual liberty. Don’t bother me and I won’t bother you. I suppose that may be more Libertarian, but that is individualist right wing.

      Wikipedia gives a long list of right wing dictators, which includes Hitler and the fascists. But Nazi Germany was completely a leftist organization, even being the original greens, but in brown shirts. As are all military dictatorships, whether they are anticommunist or not. Maybe a benevolent military dictatorship, that empowers the individual.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_dictatorship

      A right-wing dictator is a contradiction of terms. I have heard DJT described as a right-wing dictator by some ignorant leftists, but of course he isn’t, which is demonstrated how he allowed the Governor’s to mostly handle the pandemic, as well as allow some of the blue states to self destruct with the Mob, although he gets the blame for everything. Perhaps someone can give me an example of a right-wing dictator. Can’t think of one dictator that isn’t a leftist. Other than myself who might be a right wing dictator…who rules over my kingdom of 1800 acres of forest land/lakefront with an iron fist. Actually, Caterpillar, if iron is involved.

      • Reading the definition they seem to have broadened “right wing” to include socially conservative dictatorships which may or may not have pro business pro private property policies.

  39. From my experience on the Leroux file, Connolley cannot edit on living persons, so he specialized on dead scientists and had his goons (Rabett) to do the dirty work elsewhere…

  40. When climate scientists can explain, to the 2nd decimal place, just how many SUVs it took to melt the icecaps on Mars at the same time and rate as those on Planet Earth, I’ll start to pay attention. Until that day comes (I’m not holding my breath) I’ll continue to mock their college degree-granted gravitas as much as “Basketweaving 101”, which, so far as I can see, actually teaches one a useful skill, unlike the climate sciences. The practice of “science” should be observation, theory, and proof. The AGW CO2 hypothesis fails in at least two of those three categories.

  41. The solution is to write a bot to scan wikipedia. If the words climate and denier appear on the same entry, change all occurances of denier to skeptic.

    It is clear given the speed at which edits are undone the there is already an army of bots at work flagging changes. Global edit and replace on wikipedia is the only solution.

  42. OK, well so much for supporting Wikipedia – they can get funding from somewhere else.

  43. A global edit and replace of climate denier to AGW skeptic on wikipedia could be based on an open source site grabber, that filters for climate and denier, with added code to write back changes. Do it all behind a public VPN and change wikipedia logins as required.

    A selection of different boiler plate edit reasons could be randomly applied to each change.

  44. “Wikipedia’s apparent betrayal of their founding ideal will likely be their downfall.”

    Not uncommonly, a person or an organization will be their own worst enemy. It has been my experience that Wikipedia is a convenient source of reliable information on non-controversial topics, such as physics or mathematics. However, it is almost always biased to the left on topics that intersect with politics. I have a friend who refuses to accept Wikipedia citations from his students on any topic. They are already reaping the ‘rewards’ of their progressive ideology; however, their political blinders prevent them from seeing the damage they are doing.

    I have been told by someone I once worked with that there is an old Russian saying that “Everyone soon knows when a man defecates in his hat.”

  45. “”…Wikipedia editor Hob Galding (Hob admits this is a pseudonym) changed the entry back the next day, and offered the following explanation.

    They find it offensive? So what? I find their existence offensive, but I don’t expect them to do anything about it. They exist, I am offended, end of story…”

    Guess what Galdling? There’s this guy from 20th century history named Hitler. Heard of him? He found Jews to be offensive. Do you know what he and his fellow Nazis did about it?

    Gadling, your statement reflects a profound and frightening lack of both maturity and intelligence. Whenever Wikipedia launches a fund-raising drive at its website, people like you and Connolley
    at Wiki make it a very easy decision for me to not give you one red cent.

    Gadling, it’s tragic when a supposedly grown adult demonstrates that he still has something in common with the very young customers at a day care center — they all need to learn what respect is. I would like to believe that there is hope for individuals like yourself, but I am not optimistic.

  46. It appears there is already a bot to do global edit and replace on wikipedia: AutoWikiBrowser.

    You give AutoWikiBrowser a list of pages and a script, and it will automatically make changes and present these to you for approval. The source is available for download, so it would not be a stretch of the imagination to marry this to a site grabber to build a list of pages to be monitored and edited.

    This would explain my experience with wikipedia. You make a change and literally within a matter of minutes if not seconds the change has been undone. An automated browser with an editing script cold easily monitor hundreds if not thousands of pages every hour.

  47. I have contributed to wickipedia for years but have become increasingly disalusioned over the last couple of years – bit like th BBC. They can do without my money from now.

  48. Surely, “Hob Galding” is the wrong word to use to name this person. I, thus, propose that we change “Hob Galding” to “Dumb Ass”.

    Boo hoo, poor little closed minded, short sighted zealot getting upset about people calling him what he is. That’s what he is, and so the name is the proper name.

  49. “If you want to be treated like real scientists, behave like real scientists. Do not just steal e-mails, cherry-pick quotes, cherry-pick data, cherry-pick studies, cherry-pick scientists, accuse innocent scientists of fraud, harrass them with legal shenanigans, bribe politicians, and so on.”

    Isn’t he describing alarmist here????

  50. Anthropogenic Global Climate change is a religion.
    The AGW/CC priests, like Humpty Dumpty, are free to define the terms they use in any way they see fit.
    Denier is just a poor choice of word.
    Heretic would a more appropriate choice.
    Climate Change does not mean the same thing to a “Climate Scientist” as it does to an ‘Orthodox Scientist.
    On the contrary, rather than denying that Climate Change is taking place, orthodox scientists recognize that the Earth’s climate is in a constant state of change.

  51. So this guy “Hob” (is it Galding or Gadling?), has he heard of the denier of Newtonian Mechanics? Einstein. No? Einstein wasn’t a denier? Or was he skeptical of the well-established scientific consensus? And what about all those Relativity deniers? Or were they skeptical, too???

    One major difference is that Einstein’s predictions were PROVABLE, and within a dozen years or so light from a star was proven to bend around the Sun, during a total eclipse, according to Einstein’s theory, by gravity.

    Ask Hob, with all of the resources of Wiki to show us the proof of his global warming predictions.

    I think if Einstein and Feynman were still alive these twits like Hob and Connolly would be nowhere.

    Hey, Hob, how about Barry Marshall?
    “Marshall and Robin Warren showed that the bacterium Helicobacter pylori (H. pylori) plays a major role in causing many peptic ulcers, CHALLENGING DECADES Of MEDICAL DOCTRINE holding that ulcers were caused primarily by stress, spicy foods, and too much acid.” – reference Wikipedia, emphasis mine..

  52. Wikipedia lost credibility a very long time ago. There are instances where Wikipedia is fine for use. If I want to find out when someone was born or died, it’s great. If you’re looking for weights and measures, you’re pretty safe. If you’re looking for anything that might have any political value in any way, you will always find Wikipedia to be heavily biased to the left. It’s just not worth patronizing Wikipedia anymore.

    • And as more and more things «might have any political value in any way», this leads to rather predictable results.

  53. Interesting how today’s snowflakes are all about not being offended. Almost every objection they make at the heart of it is being offended. Yet they willingly and openly offend other people all the time and think nothing of it. It only matters if their delicate sensitivities are offended.

  54. I think if Gob Holding wants to avoid being called a first-class d-bag, that he should stop behaving like one. Until then though, yeah, he’s a d-bag.

  55. This “Hob Gobblin” stands out from the rest of wikieditors only in that he (?) forgot to put a pseudo-intellectual mask on. And even then, only because it’s a gimmick of wikipedia.
    Also, if you are curious how would this vile speech sound offline and without pseudonyms, the answer is: as long as there’s a whole mob of them, it’s much the same, but with more clapping.

    I attended a con once where the toastmaster said that they wanted all conservatives to “hurry up and die and leave the planet to the rest of us. No wait, they can stay as long as we can have their money.” And people applauded.
    […]
    One of them even said before leaving, “Your time is over. We don’t need you anymore, [expletive here].”
    — Brad R. Torgersen, “The Mote in Gernsback’s Eye”

  56. Dr. Willie Soon, may I suggest that instead of saying we are offended by the descriptive “denier” why not simply say that it’s a wrong description since neither climate nor AGW is denied. The only thing “deniers” are is being skeptic about alarmist projections, often based on disputable data.

  57. Perhaps someone should tell them their habit of letting activists alter information and then protecting it from Truth has ALREADY alienated the world. Wikipedia is now and authority as much as fact checkers are about actual facts.

    “Yeah… I bet you got that from wikipedia” is already a put down of anyone’s opinion or statrement.

  58. The word denier does 2 things,
    It assumes the information being discussed is an absolute truth and leads to the belief that any one who doesn’t agree is simply wrong and should not be listened to.

    It’s a clever way to discredit information, stifles honest debate and even opposing scientific evidence.
    I believe in climate change but not in AGW.
    The people who believe the climate is only changing because of human activity and prior to that was consistently stable and predictable are the real climate deniers. They believe the ice doesn’t melt in the summer, that there has never been wild fires before now, that the earth has not been as warm as now. That’s denial. Denial of evidence, denial of science.

    Evidence is not a computer prediction.

  59. Then Wikipedia has the audacity to come along every year begging for money. Until Wikipedia becomes more nonpartisan they will never see a dime from me.

  60. Wiki-fecalia, needs a comment section for each article. Otherwise, those who have no life decide the truth. As a workaround, I was wondering about citing contradictory studies, but state they reinforce the narrative in articles for fun.

Comments are closed.