Thursday, October 21, 2010

Censoring the Censor




First, there was Climategate and now there is Wikipropaganda. Apparently, one of the top global alarmist gurus, William Connelly, along with other global warming alarmists had squelched dissenting science.  Wikipedia admitted that it had been hijacked by global warming alarmists so now a group of Wikipedia arbitrators have banned William Connelly from participating in any discussion, article, or forum dealing with global warming. "They also banned other posters who had turned Wikipedia into their global warming propaganda outlet."


"Mr. Connolley is a former Green Party candidate for local political office and until 2007 was a climate modeler for the British Antarctic Survey. He is also a missionary for the view that humans cause global warming, and over the years he used his power as an "administrator" on Wikipedia to rewrite the site's global warming articles. He celebrated such controversial scientists as Penn State's Michael Mann, of Climategate fame, and he presented even disputed global warming science as fact. He routinely deleted entries that presented competing views and barred contributors with whom he disagreed. He also smeared scientific skeptics by rewriting their online biographies."

Since Connolley and other global warming alarmists used their positions to enlist a one-sided campaign to exclude differing evidentiary science or publications by dissenters I agree with the decision made by seven dispute arbitrators to ban Connolley and other global warming alarmists from participating in any forums or discussions on global warming.

17 comments:

John Carey said...

This is great news Teresa. When I was in college we were always told not to use Wikipedia as a source because information was suspect. Well now we know it is true.

Opus #6 said...

This guy sounds like a professional at bearing false witness.

Conservative Scalawag said...

Okay, when the Green Party candidate talk I know they are lying - cause their lips are moving.

And,quesstion - or comment - why do the Green Party call themselves green, when in fact they are a bunch of Reds - as in communist marxist?

Just saying is all.

Woodsterman (Odie) said...

I guess I don't need to use Wikipedia any longer ....

Leticia said...

That pretty much decides it for me, no more wikipedia.

The Conservative Lady said...

I had heard that anyone could add information to Wikipedia, so it's not surprising that they were co-opted by a global warming zealot. A good reason not to use Wikipedia as a source of information.

Most Rev. Gregori said...

To Conservative Scalawag: You asked: "why do the Green Party call themselves green, when in fact they are a bunch of Reds - as in communist marxist?"

The answer is simple, they hope that the rest of us are "color Blind".

As for me, I have never used, nor will I ever use Wikipedia, and just to let you all know, Just because "SNOPES" says that something is true or not true, especially any thing concerning Obama and other leftists, doesn't make it so. Don't trust "Snopes". I found plenty of falsehoods on that sight, especially when it came to Obama's so-called Birth Certificate and a few other things.

Teresa said...

John,

Yes, it is great news. I would say it is more about checking out those sources at the bottom of wikipedia articles, and whether they are true or not. My husband and I have found wikipedia quite useful at times but we verify the accuracy and truthfulness of the articles via the citations.

Teresa said...

Opie,

I didn't think of that until you mentioned it. Great observation!

Teresa said...

Conservative Scalawag,

It's all in deceiving the voters so that the people believe their hogwash.

Teresa said...

Odie,

Use but be very careful. Go to links and verify what their saying is reality.

Teresa said...

Leticia,

Wikipedia can be useful so just verify the info with the outside links when using it.

Teresa said...

The Conservative Lady,

It is sad that the global warming wikipedia site was co-opted by a global warming alarmist. But, at least wikipedia eventually recognized and has resolved the problem.

Teresa said...

Most Rev. Gregori,
'The answer is simple, they hope that the rest of us are "color Blind".'

You are absolutely right.

SNOPES is not to be trusted. I received an email awhile ago and will post it in totality here.

"Who watches the watchers?
For the past few years http://www.snopes.com/ has positioned itself, or others have labeled it, as the 'tell-all final word' on any comment, claim and email. But for several years people tried to find out who exactly was behind http://www.snopes.com/.

Only recently did Wikipedia get to the bottom of it - kinda made you wonder what they were hiding. Well, finally we know. It is run by a husband and wife team - that's right, no big office of investigators and researchers, no team of lawyers. It's just a mom-and pop operation that began as a hobby. David and Barbara Mikkelson in the San Fernando Valley of California started the website about 13 years ago - and they have no formal background or experience in investigative research. After a few years it gained popularity believing it to be unbiased and neutral, but over the past couple of years people started asking questions who was behind it and did they have a selfish motivation?

The reason for the questions - or skepticisms - is a result of http://www.snopes.com/ claiming to have the bottom line facts to certain questions or issue when in fact they have been proven wrong. Also, there were criticisms the Mikkelsons were not really investigating and getting to the 'true' bottom of various issues.

A few months ago, when my State Farm agent Bud Gregg in Mandeville hoisted a political sign referencing Barack Obama and made a big splash across the internet, 'supposedly' the Mikkelsons claim to have researched this issue before posting their findings on http://www.snopes.com/. In their statement they claimed the corporate office of State Farm pressured Gregg into taking down the sign, when in fact nothing of the sort 'ever' took place. I personally contacted David Mikkelson (and he replied back to me) thinking he would want to get to the bottom of this and I gave him Bud Gregg's contact phone numbers - and Bud was going to give him phone numbers to the big exec's at State Farm in Illinois who would have been willing to speak with him about it. He never called Bud. In fact, I learned from Bud Gregg no one fromhttp://www.snopes.com/ ever contacted anyone with State Farm. Yet, http://www.snopes.com/ issued a statement as the 'final factual word' on the issue as if they did all their homework and got to the bottom of things - not!

Then it has been learned the Mikkelsons are Democrats and extremely liberal. As we all now know from this presidential election, liberals have a purpose agenda to discredit anything that appears to be conservative. There has been much criticism lately over the internet with people pointing out the Mikkelsons liberalism revealing itself in their website findings. Gee, what a shock?"

Teresa said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Teresa said...

CONTINUED....

"So, I say this now to everyone who goes to http://www.snopes.com/ to get what they think to be the bottom line facts ... 'proceed with caution.' Take what it says at face value and nothing more. Use it only to lead you to their references where you can link to and read the sources for yourself. Plus, you can always Google a subject and do the research yourself. It now seems apparent that's all the Mikkelsons do. After all, I can> personally vouch from my own experience for their 'not' fully looking into things.

http://www.wikipedia.org/

http://www.snopes.com/

I have found this to be true also! Many videos of Obama I tried to verify on Snopes and they said they were False... Then they gave their Liberal slant...!!! I have suspected some problems with snopes for some time now, but I have only caught them in half-truths. If there is any subjectivity they do an immediate full left rudder. Truth or Fiction's web-site http://www.truthorfiction.com/ is a better source for verification, in my opinion.

I have recently discovered that is http://www.snopes.com/ owned by a flaming liberal and this man is in the tank for Obama. There are many things they have listed on their site as a hoax and yet you can go to YouTube yourself and find the video of Obama actually saying these things. So you see, you cannot and should not trust http://www.snopes.com/ for anything that remotely resembles truth (SIC ESPECIALLY WHEN IT COMES TO LIBERAL vs CONSERVATIVE CONCERNS)! I don't even trust them to tell me if email chains are hoaxes anymore.

A few conservative speakers on MySpace told me about http://www..snopes.com/ a few months ago and I took it upon myself to do a little research to find out if it was true. Well, I found out for myself that it is true. Anyway just FYI, please don't use http://www.snopes.com/ anymore for fact checking and make your friends aware of their political leanings as well. Many people still think http://www.snopes.com/ is neutral and they can be trusted as factual. We need to make sure everyone is aware that that is a hoax in itself."

Thank you,

Alan Strong, CEO/Chairman
Commercial Programming Systems, Inc.

Matt said...

I did a post on him not long after ClimateGate broke. He also edited the medieval warm period. While it did actually occur, it messed up Mann's hockey graph, so it had to go. It took about 9-10 months, but the Wikipedians finally did something about it.