Must be a conspiracy then. He/She must be being paid by Al Gore, head of the conspiracy. Probably is a Communist too. And a terrorist... No wait, an ECO-terrorist... And a mmember of Greenpeace. And eats babies...

Very clear to me now.

No, T, not a conspiracy, it is just what low life scum do whenever they have the opportunity to corrupt and mislead. They can't help themselves. Deception has always been at the core of the climate mafia's MO. Hansen or Gore might call it exaggeration but reasonable men and women recognise it as gross misrepresentation of fact, made with a knowledge of its untruth and with an intention to mislead.

Ian, that's classic.
They're not a conspiracy, they're a "mafia"...
Thanks for the correction, I'll use the correct term...
Does this mean they're not communists? Or are they still Communists too?

What about the Eco-terrorist label? Is that right?

I suspect she is well meaning but wrong. Sort of like Mr T.

Mr T seems to be well meaning and right.

Decadal temperature record for the past four decades.

What conclusion do you come to?

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28148050daa8a7cc.jpg

Mr.T....judging by your lame comments, the import of the column went completely over your head. Who said anything about a conspiracy, or eco-terrorists or any of the red herrings you dragged into it? Why did you comment? If you have nothing to say, then say it!
Cheers....theoldhogger

Food riots across the globe, hitting the poor, disposing of surplus population, destroying natural jungles as they are converted to feed the ecologists furnaces.
And the media's are fed horseshit from scumbags and zealots like Naomi Oreskes, and the public is prevented from hearing the truth by corporate censors like Kim Dabelstein Petersen.

Want to see some irony? From Wikipedia on corporate censorship.
"Suppression/falsification of scientific research"
--Scientific studies may be suppressed or falsified because they undermine sponsors' commercial, political or other interests or because they fail to support researchers' ideological goals. Examples include, failing to publish a study which shows that a new drug is harmful, or truthfully publishing the benefits of a treatment while failing to describe harmful side-effects. Scientific research may also be suppressed or altered to support a political agenda. (See http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/story.html?id=440268 - for example)

I don't subscribe to Jennifer's belief that Kim Dabelstein Petersen, spends here every waking moment monitoring Wikipedia's climate change agenda because of her concern for the future.
She is getting paid of by Gore.

James ... I think you may be a little confused, here.
The money only ever goes in one direction: towards Gore.

SJT,
What relevance does that graph have to the blog post? Don't you care about Benny being misrepresented etcetera?

I have tried to edit a wiki page too, and found my change disappeared in an instant. You're problem is missing one of the fundamental, systemic flaws of Wikipedia. It's a great resource, if you don't believe it's always right on contentious issues.

Do you understand the graph?

Unfortunately climate science isn't the only area of science that is edited for political correctmness - some of the plasma topics suffer as much.

That said, most of us in the physical sciences don't use Wikipedia for these very reasons.

As for conspiracies and all that waffle - there are none but US liberal journalist Bernard Goldberg pointed out the reason for this incessant editing policy - the political left, in general, fratenise and socialise only with the like minded, and never have to deal with contradiction in their daily lives. They actually believe they are normal and the rest of us beyond the pale. It is also a sincerely held view based principally of only having experience within the confines of their own fellow travellers and never having socialised with people who might hold alternative views.

My own family is a case in point - left to very left, green to dark green, and the only cognitive dissonance is when they have to confront my position on climate etc. This mind set seems unable to grasp alternative explanations are possible for observed phenomena, and that is probably due to their education, where they have been, expertly I must add, trained what to think, but now how to think.

And thinking, being a electro-physical process, can be as habituating as any other physical activity. Habitual thinking is simply dogmatic thought, and when a habit becomes submerged into an individual's subconscious behaviour, then nothing can be done to change it.

So while one becomes iritated by the censoring of Wikipedia entries, it is, none the less, a sincere effort to correct what is perceived to be wrong. Such is the behaviour of a mind whose thinking is dominated by the deductive method.

It takes rare intellect to realise this and two outstanding examples of this can be found in the writings of the recently decedent Padriac McGuinness, and Keith Windschuttle - the latter having escaped from the intellectual monolith of leftism by using the empirical method to test asertions made by some Australian Historians when he discovered Aboriginal history was fabricated; Paddy's sin was to ignore the Hounds of Heaven, among others.

Wikipedia is therefore nothing other than a consensus forum and hardly a source of objective scientific fact.

SJT

The graph is hard to read, and is essentially undocumented. It could mean anything.

That you also admit to changing Wikipedia entries supports my position that it is a resource of proven doubt - but then your lack of experience in scientific empiricism demands we should not be too harsh in our criticism of your errors.

I agree, Louis, "Wikipedia is therefore nothing other than a consensus forum and hardly a source of objective scientific fact". The problem is that it poses a real threat to more credible sources of information that take their responsibilities more seriously. It occupies a space that rightfully belongs to a credible source but does not deliver the credibility.

SJT: "What conclusion do you come to?"

http://forums.randi.org/imagehosting/thum_28148050daa8a7cc.jpg

That you're an incompetent loon. If your going to post a graph at least make sure it's readable! Stop wasting everyone's time!

SJT is merely trying to divert attention from the topic. Ditto Mr T. It is almost as if Gore has sent out a directive to all his cadres to paint all sceptics as conspiracy theorists. And no, T, that is not a conspiracy theory. It is exactly the kind of message coordination that Gore claimed was needed.

This is news?

The editing games has been going on for a while now.

Wikipedia is a second rate source.

I wish you'd all start referring to it by the more appropriate name "Wikipravda"!

Its easy for anyone to review the flame wars over AGW with the history tabs on the wiki pages.
William Connelley was especially notable in this incapacity. I wonder about particulars of his disappearance.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Climate_Change_Science_Program&oldid=153602992
Removed the following "Note" from section SAP 1.1:

Note, however: References 6 and 7 refer to the Press release and Executive Summary (Tom Wigley, lead author), respectively. Inexplicably, these misrepresent the plain results of the Report itself, namely that there is a clear discrepancy in the rate of (low-latitude) temperature increase for the surface compared with higher levels in the atmosphere – which contradicts the expected results from greenhouse models. This can be easily checked by comparing Fig. 5.7E of the Report with Fig. 1.3F; the discrepancy is most clearly shown also in Fig. 5.4G. The inevitable conclusion is that the (human) greenhouse contribution to current warming is of minor importance compared to natural processes.
The note has been added three times by User:SFredSinger. If this discrepancy is discussed elsewhere, then it may be included and cited - otherwise it appears as WP:OR. Vsmith 19:43, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climate_Change_Science_Program"

Because we all know FRED SINGER isn't qualified to expound on climate issues!!!!!

Louis,

I think the following quote sums up the problem for many on both sides - the inability to consider a viewpoint/argument which doesn't conform to prejudice.

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of doubt, what is laid before him.
Tolstoy

from a friend, just filing the note here, "You should see what they do to sea level. I have been told by some they have tried to correct it, but it keeps get edited back. More extreme than Hansen and Gore!

Some one with an agenda and funding has a job top make sure Wikipedia represents the alarmist position because it is the lazy journalist, teacher, alarmist first place to go for details."

Jennifer if Benny is being misrepresented why doesn't he just tell them. If it's so important, why can't Benny contact them and say "you got it wrong, this is what I think".
All I see here is a load of moaning, and this bizarre conspiracy rubbish.
What is the point of this post? It's a load of "he says" "she says" trivial nonsense.
Wikipedia has it wrong, big deal.

As usual this blog surpases itself with a lack of rigour.

Jennifer, why are you filing that note here? Do you agree with that sentiment? Or do you lack the courage to actually announce your belief and have to resort to "A friend of mine said this..."

You make points by suggestion which is a lazy thing to do.

Mr T.,

I often file things at threads.
Sometimes I agree with what I file, often I don't. If I put it here I can find it again ... what was being said about Wikipedia and editing.

For examplem, if you now want to find some of what was said about the Christopher Pearson article in the Australia, you can click here and scroll down, http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/archives/002857.html

Still no idea what the point of this post is... Far as I can tell it's to show how "wrong" the other side is...
And somehow people here are convinced by what is essentially hearsay.

Jennifer, do you know why this Benny character hasn't contacted Wikipedia?

Mr T.,
Benny Peiser is a great guy and a prof at Liverpool University in the UK. My guess is that he doesn't believe he will get a fair go at Wikipedia whether he complains or not. He is a well know skeptic.

more about Benny here:
http://www.staff.livjm.ac.uk/spsbpeis/

Jennifer, that's a lame argument...
If he has a problem he should tell them.

Your the one with the problem. Benny is probably just getting on with life.
He does a great newsletter.
:-)

As a proof of the contention that they are propounding AGW and stiffing contrary evidence, what sort of search terms would wikipedia avoid?
An obvious one would be "Argo Array".
Wiki kicks out in this order-
Argo opus - some sort of music
Joe Harriett - someone who lived in Argo, UK
Argo systems - radar for boats
Argo city - home of the fictional General Zod from the Superman comic
Argo - Measured intermediate and small scale fluctuations of the cosmic background radiation
Argo Navis - ancient obsolete stellar constellation
Argo - musical style, comparable to new jazz or jazzland

That's the first page.
I'm convinced that wikipedia has stiffed the climate change findings from the Argo Array.

Mr T,

Not employed by DOIR any chance?

Jen

I am working on the task assigned to me by you, so fear not, it will presented but "bien pesants" keep throwing distractions which I need to minimise.

Best

Louis

"Not employed by DOIR any chance?"

I smell a CONSPIRACY! Go get 'em, Louis!

Here's some additional information and conjecture about Kim Dabelstein Petersen:
http://www.quickrob.com/weblog/?p=1305

SJT

Hook, line and sinker.

Why are you guys feeding Mr. T(roll)?