Two weeks ago, a parent-teacher council blamed the online research source Wikipedia for falling test scores in Scotland.
On Tuesday, Canadian columnist Lawrence Solomon blamed Wikipedia for helping to spread global warming hysteria around the world.
The connection? Oftentimes "inaccurate or deliberately misleading information" published by Wikipedia being taken as fact by unsuspecting readers.
In the case of climate change, such inaccurate or deliberately misleading information acts to solidify the myth being espoused by Nobel Laureate Al Gore as millions of people across the globe believe Wikipedia is a purely factual resource.
As the Scotsman reported on June 21, such an assumption carries risks (emphasis added):
The Scottish Parent Teacher Council (SPTC) said pupils are turning to websites and internet resources that contain inaccurate or deliberately misleading information before passing it off as their own work.
The group singled out online encyclopedia Wikipedia, which allows entries to be logged or updated by anyone and is not verified by researchers, as the main source of information. [...]
Eleanor Coner, the SPTC's information officer, said: "Children are very IT-savvy, but they are rubbish at researching. The sad fact is most children these days use libraries for computers, not the books. We accept that as a sign of the times, but schools must teach pupils not to believe everything they read.
"It's dangerous when the internet is littered with opinion and inaccurate information which could be taken as fact." [...]Ronnie Smith, the general secretary of the Educational Institute of Scotland, said there was a higher risk of inaccurate information on the internet than in books. He added: "We need to make sure youngsters don't take what they read online as fact."
Several further education institutions have already banned students from using the interactive encyclopaedia. At one college in Vermont in the US, a history professor found several students repeated the same error in exam papers. On discovering the information came from Wikipedia, the college outlawed its future use.
With this in mind, Solomon's piece published at National Review Online Tuesday is even more concerning (emphasis added):
Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works. [...]
Kim Dabelstein Petersen is a Wikipedia “editor” who seems to devote a large part of his life to editing reams and reams of Wikipedia pages to pump the assertions of global-warming alarmists and deprecate or make disappear the arguments of skeptics. [...]
Now Petersen is merely a Wikipedia “editor.” Holding the far more prestigious and powerful position of “administrator” is William Connolley. Connolley is a software engineer and sometime climatologist (he used to hold a job in the British Antarctic Survey), as well as a serial (but so far unsuccessful) office seeker for England’s Green party.
And yet by virtue of his power at Wikipedia, Connolley, a ruthless enforcer of the doomsday consensus, may be the world’s most influential person in the global warming debate after Al Gore. Connolley routinely uses his editorial clout to tear down scientists of great accomplishment such as Fred Singer, the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Service and a scientist with dazzling achievements. Under Connolley’s supervision, Wikipedia relentlessly smears Singer as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry.“[Benny] Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here,” Connolley wrote several weeks ago, in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an “edit war,” as they’re called. Trumping Wikipedia’s stated rules, Connelly used his authority to ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted them to see. Any reference, anywhere among Wikipedia’s 2.5 million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley’s bidding.
Scary stuff, wouldn't you agree? After all, there are millions of people around the world whose total knowledge concerning this crucial issue of our time comes exclusively from Wikipedia.
This is tremendously evident in the comments sections at NewsBusters when virtually any time an article about global warming is posted, alarmists will cite information from Wikipedia to refute the veracity of the piece.
Certainly, this isn't to suggest that Wikipedia is not a valuable resource, and that all of its material is errant. However, as it specifically pertains to global warming -- and other issues to be sure -- the left-leaning bias of this website is clearly apparent, and the abuses by its editors to not only debase those they disagree with, but also prevent scientific information that contests their views to be included, makes this entity very dangerous.
This is especially the case as it seems a metaphysical certitude regardless of who's in the White House next year that Congress will once again be debating a carbon cap and trade bill to deal with global warming.
As the public is only getting one side of this debate from the mainstream media, the propaganda on display at Wikipedia could be enough to tip the scales in favor of legislation that could cripple the American economy.
Readers are encouraged to review Brent Bozell's "Wikipedia, Not Your Father's Encyclopedia."
—Noel Sheppard is the Associate Editor of NewsBusters.
Editor at Large
Comments Policy
Joke
July 9, 2008 - 11:39 ET by ScrapironWhy would anyone trust Wikipedia? A teacher or official using it should be fired immediately. I'll stick with my trusty 'Websters' and sometimes you have to cross check them.
Wikipedia- dummies fooling with the minds of dummies.
Old, Retired and glad of it.
Yes
July 9, 2008 - 11:47 ET by 10ksnookerWithout a doubt Wikipedia is the last source for truth about quite a few things that touch on political. Get yourself a good printed encyclopaedia from a reputable source, for real truth.
My old physics books still have the sun creating and destroying ozone, depending on the quantity and frequency of UV light the sun serves up, just like it always has.
If that fails, you can always use google's scholar search and just read the research papers yourself.
'Climate Change' nonsense
July 9, 2008 - 11:59 ET by merkava'Climate Change' nonsense is broadcast every day here in the UK.
All you hear are phrases like: "Combat Climate Change," "Stop Global Warming" etc. subtly mixed in with stories about the environment. The lie itself is no longer up for discussion, it is <b>fact</b> that Man controls the weather.
merkava...
July 9, 2008 - 12:04 ET by Clear thinkerOne of the best documentarys to come along concerning AGW is called "The great global warming swindle" and is a British production. Does anyone in the U.K. ever talk about that?
45 Communist Goals for America http://www.nationmakers.com/com_goals.htm
Wikipedia ignoring policy
July 9, 2008 - 12:26 ET by SpeakEasyNotice that Connolley works in the climate change field but that conflict of interest is ignored, despite the Wikipedia policy against members having a conflict of interest.
Wikipedia is just the latest tool of the left
July 9, 2008 - 12:30 ET by c5thenThey will use whatever means they have to spread their political idiology to the masses and to prevent any oposing viewpoints from being heard or read. They care not one iota for truth ot fairness, only that their viewpoint is the only one. It all derives from Marx and Mao, in that the "educated elite" know the answers and the 'uneducated masses' must be told what to do for their own good. Except that history shows that humans are flawed egotistical self-absorbed power hungry addicts and will almost always choose personal agrandizement over almost anything else. So the marxist philosophy is always doomed to failure because the people in power will almost always choose their own personal betterment over their jobs and therefore corruption becomes the norm, not the exception.
The extremist environmental ideology is closely related to the marxist, in that the elite decide that they alone 'know the truth' and must force their ideas on the 'unknowing masses'. No matter that the climate is constantly changing, no matter that the climate seems to run in 100,000 year cycles and we are only 10,000 years from an ice age...never mind any data to the contrary. They have decided that only they 'understand'. It is the height of arrogance that they even entertain the idea that the climate is able to be manipulated.
The day that "politician" became a career choice is the day we started losing the Republic. Let's get it back! Alan Keyes '08.
Educated Elite
July 9, 2008 - 14:24 ET by okiehawk44The educated elite better watch out for the Pol Pots of this world. The Khmer Rouge didn't much take to "them educated types" and "them folks wearin' glasses" -- you get the point. Stacks and stacks of human skulls (wearing glasses) that once contained very educated brains.
chairman Mao too
July 9, 2008 - 17:30 ET by wizardjrThe Chinese revolution wiped out their entire educated class (except for the weapons designers). Its taken decades to get back what they lost.
You are right on and I would like to add:
July 9, 2008 - 14:47 ET by ahusserThe environmental movement is a political movement not a scientific endeavor. The "Reds" morphed to the "Green" Party after the wall came down and the USSR went belly up.
Read this letter to the House committee on Energy and Commerce by Czech Prezident Vaclav Klaus. If anyone can detect the Marxist Leninist slant in the Global Warming BS it is this man. The letter says it all.
c5 is right. Wikipedia should be renamed Wikiganda
July 9, 2008 - 16:34 ET by BritcomWikipedia has been hijacked by admins with a liberal agenda and they gang up on anyone who attempts to challenge the edits of their fellow liberals. They get conservatives and impartial editors blocked or banned on trumped up accusations and label them as troublemakers and trolls when someone reverts or corrects their nonsense. It is impossible to maintain a truthful article when the liberals swarm you with complaints to liberal admins who eagerly block you for challenging their friends.
Google is also a willing culprit, because even though there are several other wiki type encyclopedias, Google blocks them from its search results and makes sure Wikipedia articles are always in the top 10 results.
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country"
This is a Misleading Story
July 9, 2008 - 12:33 ET by Remixer96Here's the thing about Wikipedia, they try to actively remain neutral, which means tossing out as many opinions and only leaving facts whenever possible. Reading the article above at face value, you'd think Wikipedia was just as likely to give a liberal benefit of the doubt to anything as often as the Daily Kos would, which is simply untrue.
I suspect the reason for the Pieser argument centered around Wikipedia's commitment to Verifiability. Given that Pieser's claims and study regarding climate change have been actively refused by many journals, the Wikipedia editors seemed to make the decision to keep his claims off.
I think we should certainly make better efforts to teach our children the difference between good and bad information on the Internet, but Wikipedia already strives to a higher standard than the rest of the Internet aims for, so to attack them would be to attack the wrong target.
The only thing misleading is Wikipedia
July 9, 2008 - 12:41 ET by PopularTechAnyone with an ounce of intelligence regarding the internet would never use Wikipedia as a primary source of truth:
The Faith-Based Encyclopedia (Robert McHenry, Former Editor in Chief, the Encyclopedia Britannica)
So Wikipedia is full of facts and accurate then please answer these questions:
The Wikipedia Paradox:
1. If Wikipedia is so accurate then why would anyone ever need to make corrections to it? The pages should simply be locked for all eternity in their current perfectly accurate state.
2. Who decides who a "good editor" is? How are their qualifications determined? (anyone with an internet connection can edit any Wikipedia page at will and anyone can create a Wiki account)
3. How do you determine if a page is "good editor" corrected or "bad editor" inaccurate?
4. What is the time frame for a "good editor" to correct a page and how is this time frame determined?
5. If more then one "good editor" wants to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?
6. If more then one person is "watching" a topic for changes and they both want to make completely different changes to a page who wins? Could it be the last one who edited it? But which is the truth?
7. Are there more expert or non-expert people with Internet connections on a certain subject that can edit that subject's Wikipedia page?
8. With no value assigned to level of expertise for editors per Wikipedia page how is the accuracy of the edits determined?
9. How is a "neutral point of view" determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a "neutral point of view"?
10. At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it's level of accuracy?
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Answers
July 9, 2008 - 13:18 ET by Remixer96Not that these are perfect, but I would respond to the questions in this way.
1) Accuracy is not based on a single point in time. The constant editing is what keeps Wikipedia's accuracy high through time. It's not as if the encyclopedia is horribly broken and it's taking this long to fix it. The continuous refinement is not a reflection of inaccuracy.
2) This is the danger of Wikipedia. Anyone can edit anything. A better way to describe Wikipedia would be as a community rather than as an encyclopedia. As such, they let anyone join to share their knowledge, and at the same time the members have a shared concern to make sure someone doesn't bring trash into the community.
3) You don't. It's the risk of the system. The goal is for any claim, especially controversial ones, to be cited. Additionally, you can look over the edit list and see if a number of anonymous people have edited the page or if people who have contributed to other articles in a civil manner have done so. It's tru you have to do some homework, but the format of Wikipedia makes the homework easier to undertake.
4) There's a queue. Actually, there are two queues with flags from members, one for non-time sensitive issues and the other for urgent issues. But the long story short is, whenever they get to it.
5) Notions of objective truth aside, when we're talking about facts, there shouldn't be two opposing sides to a fact. If they both see their perspective of the issue as important, they add it to the article. It's how Wikipedia grows.
6) Again skirting the question of truth, the last one unless a moderator step in and ends the dispute.
7) Good question, and I don't know. The idea behind letting anyone edit was that people would contribute in areas of interest or expertise. So one would hope that those with expertise, or at least good research skills, would be the primary people contributing to a topic.
8) There's not an accuracy meter per se. All contributors are strongly encouraged to cite their sources, but there's no meter with an accuracy rating for particular pages.
9) I'll let the link speak for itself
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
10) The same way you determine any pages accuracy. However, the comfort in a Wikipedia page is that you know this is likely to be reasonable, since many many many eyes have seen it and had the opportunity to edit it if they saw things that were wrong with it. Even then, you should still be looking for sources as you read.
Wikipedia is not perfect. It is based on a principle that many hands working towards the goal of accuracy will eventually produce an outcome better than any small group of editors. It carries some risks and challenges we haven't faced before, but I personally think it's a pretty good source of knowledge on the whole.
So you admit there is no way to determine the accuracy of Wiki
July 9, 2008 - 13:36 ET by PopularTech1. You did not answer the question, if it needs to be edited then it is not accurate.
2. You did not answer the question again, how and who determines a good editor?
3. So you can never know if Wikipedia is accurate or not and you have to do your research yourself. Sort of defeats the purpose of Wikipedia doesn't it!
4. Answer = you have no idea.
5. Naive answer
6. So whoever edits Wikipedia last determines what is "true" on the page, thankyou.
7. I will answer this, there are FAR more non-experts with Internet connections than experts.
8. Answer = There is no way to determine the accuracy of edits to a page.
9. Those are guidelines I asked for how this was determined in REALITY.
10. Really? So a page edited by a 5 year old is as accurate as a page written by someone with a Ph.D. on the topic?
Wikipedia is a cruel joke for those who don't understand how a wiki works.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
1) To say that Wikipedia
July 9, 2008 - 14:12 ET by Remixer961) To say that Wikipedia CAN be perpetually edited isn't to say that it NEEDS to be. Wikipedia is built around a perpetual editing system which includes the potential for future additions, not just corrections. Thus the edit-based nature of Wikipedia does not speak to the accuracy of any of its specific articles at any point in time.
2) There is no such thing as a good editor in Wikipedia. There are vandals, which seek only to wreck the place rather than contribute, but to my knowledge there is no distinciton between a good and bad editor.
3) As I stated later, the format of Wikipedia doesn't guarentee truth, but it presents the work of many people in a single place. Some would argue this has value, such as the millions who use Wikipedia.
4) No, there is no specific time frame. If you've ever worked on a bug tracking system for software you'd understand the process. It's not about the time between a breaking and fixing. It's about fixing things more or less in the order they show up. So if a vandal steps in and does a lot of quick damage, then it may take relatively more time to fix his last edit than his first. It's just the way it is.
5) Writing off my answers as naive is invalid unless you can prove they are false or have an explanation that better fits the facts. You're free to actually challenge what I say if you like.
6) Assuming everything on a Wikipedia page to be "true" in an objective sense would be bad in the same way assuming a CNN piece was "true" or a NewsBusters piece was "true." What Wikipedia pages do have is the confidence that many people have likely influenced what you see, and extreme opinons are likely to be filtered out in the process.
7) Indeed, and the idea behind Wikipedia was "how do we USE that rather than treat it as a hindrance?" But also, it's a false implication, because the ratio of experts to non-experts on the Internet is not necessarily reflective of the expert/non-expert ratio on Wikipedia just as the ratio of Republicans/Democrats online isn't the same as the members of NewsBusters.
8) Try finding a falsehood. Do that enough times and you'll get a sense for how accurate the pages are. In my experience, they tend to be accurate.
9) Unless you have evidence that the guidelines aren't followed, then you have no reason to believe otherwise. The entire system is open, you can see it at work if you wish. You don't have to take my word for it.
10) If that 5 year old's piece was subsequently edited by a PhD, sure, and there's no reason that couldn't happen. Plus, if you could show me a five year old with an interest enough in a PhD topic to write about it, I'd want to read it anyway.
Imposing black and white standards on a collaborative system is a misguided critique by those who don't understand how a wiki works.
More WIkipedia Excuses - 7 more answers remaining
July 9, 2008 - 22:48 ET by PopularTechWe can do this all day or you can answer the questions. Your continued excuses only prove my point.
1. So are you claiming that Wikipedia pages are all accurate and do not need to be corrected?
2. Total nonsense, a "good" editor would be one who accurately edits the page, a "bad" editor would be one who does not. Now please answer the question and stop dodging it: Who decides who a "good editor" is? How are their qualifications determined?
3.Another dodge, answer the question: How do you determine if a page is "good editor" corrected or "bad editor" inaccurate?
4. Answer = there is no time frame. Bug tracking software is irrelevant to Wikipedia.
5. Your answer is proven false because it is an opinion: "when we're talking about facts, there shouldn't be two opposing sides to a fact. If they both see their perspective of the issue as important, they add it to the article." - "There shoudn't be" = wishfull thinking and the notion that both sides to an issue get added and stay on a page is naive and unproven.
6. That is all speculation and wishfull thinking. I know when I check Encyclopedia Britanica the material being presented will be well researched and has went through a professional editing process.
Previous Answer = So whoever edits Wikipedia last determines what is "true" on the page.
7. Wikipedia "uses" non-experts very well by spreading misinforation and propaganda about the information on it's pages. Funny how in the real world encyclopedia's don't ask 5-year olds for their opinion.
8. Is that a joke? I find it almost everytime I have looked at it! In your "experience" is not scientific fact.
Previous Answer = There is no way to determine the accuracy of edits to a page
9. What a bunch of wishfull thinking. You did not answer the question: How is a "neutral point of view" determined on Wikipedia pages and who makes this decision? Could it be the person who edited it last? How is this a "neutral point of view"?
10. Answer the question: At the time that you are looking at a page how do you determine it's level of accuracy?
You have only answered 3 out of 10 questions.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Given that Pieser's claims
July 9, 2008 - 12:57 ET by PoseidonGiven that Pieser's claims and study regarding climate change have been actively refused by many journals, the Wikipedia editors seemed to make the decision to keep his claims off.
And what if these refusals were based upon erroneous, or concocted, information found at Wikipedia? I'd say that circular reasoning is at work here. For some flunky to set himself up as sole arbiter of what's right with respect to the AGW debate is, at best, hubris at its finest.
Unlikely
July 9, 2008 - 13:03 ET by Remixer96First, we're talking about Science and Nature, some of the most prestigious scientific journals around. They're not going to reject an article based on what they read on Wikipedia. That's just implausible.
Second, there are many editors at Wikipedia with many opinions. To say that any one person is a "sole arbiter" is to fundamentally misunderstand how Wikipedia works.
Maybe so...however,
July 9, 2008 - 13:06 ET by PoseidonPrestigious or not, to assume that the "science is settled" when it is so clearly far from it smacks of the politicisation (sp?) of science for who knows what purpose.
Disagree
July 9, 2008 - 13:25 ET by Remixer96I would disagree only in that you don't have any basis for claiming that the science isn't settled on the claims Pieser was making.
Generally, when we say that the science is settled, we look for consensus in peer reviewed journals, among which Science and Nature are leading figures. When those journals, and the others down the line, all reject to publishing Pieser's work, how is the science not settled on that claim? Especially in light of the fact that they had all been publishing articles reaching different conclusions for a while preceding Pieser's submission?
Total Nonsense about Consensus and Peer Review
July 9, 2008 - 13:38 ET by PopularTechPeer Review, Publication in Top Journals, Scientific Consensus, and So Forth (Robert Higgs, Ph.D. Economics)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
While he has a point that
July 9, 2008 - 13:51 ET by Remixer96While he has a point that preer-review isn't perfect, it's worth noting his assertion that there was a consensus in the 1970's surrounding global cooling is not accurate. It was prevalent in the emdia, but projected cooling was not a hypothesis of the majority (let alone consensus) of papers at the time.
http://ams.confex.com/ams/pdfpapers/131047.pdf
However, even given that the system is imperfect, that Pieser (to my knowledge) didn't publish his survey of the gloabal warming literature in any peer reviewed journal is a significant blow to his claims credibility. That no scientists pursued his methods afterwards only further weakens his claims.
Wikipedia is lying about Pieser's Position
July 9, 2008 - 14:01 ET by PopularTechOther scientists have:
Scientific Consensus on Climate Change?
(Energy & Environment, Volume 19, Number 2, pp. 281-286, March 2008)
- Klaus-Martin Schulte
But Pieser has never changed his position and no one has proven Pieser wrong:
"I have stressed repeatedly, Oreskes entire argument is flawed as the whole ISI data set includes just 13 abstracts (less than 2%) that explicitly endorse what she has called the 'consensus view'. In fact, the vast majority of abstracts do not mention anthropogenic climate change." - Benny Peiser
Wikipedia is clearly lying about Pieser's position which has nothing to do with Peer-Review.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
is this a joke?
July 9, 2008 - 13:27 ET by candanceWikipedia already strives to a higher standard than the rest of the Internet aims for
You mean like CNN.com, Scientific American, WebMD, NASA.gov, or Webster's online?
Wikipedia is a peer-reviewed site with no way to verify that any of the peers are experts. Take a walk down to your local public high school and ask any teacher you find what they think of Wikipedia's accuracy. If you seriously think Wikipedia is an authoritative resource you're the last person in America to find out otherwise.
I swear, sometimes I think the lefties here take on absurd ideas just for the sake of arguing with us.
I can't resist, but are you
July 9, 2008 - 13:44 ET by Remixer96I can't resist, but are you defending CNN's accuracy now?
Now, I never said Wikipedia was an authoritative resource, only that it was accurate. If you find any examples of innaccuracy in it, feel free to list them out here. I'm venturing to guess you won't find too many.
This should be especially apparent because Wikipedia strives to be an encyclopdia, which has higher standards for accuracy than news, no? This site has many documentations of CNN's errors and problems, but where are the articles about specific Wikipedia mistakes? That's what I mean by accurate.
really now remixer
July 9, 2008 - 13:53 ET by candanceGive me a break. I pulled CNN as an easy example of a news source. They might be biased in their coverage but they don't just blatantly make things up.
Errors on wikipedia? I can go to an obscure page right now, change whatever I want, and watch as the false information is at the mercy of someone who knows better to stumble upon it and take the time to change it.
This is asinine.
It's not an authoritative resource mind you, but it is more accurate than most. Splitting hairs is an art to you isn't it.
Cut me a little slack
July 9, 2008 - 14:24 ET by Remixer96Cut me a little slack Candace, how often do I get to say things like that CNN comment around here? :-P
But here's the thing, there are people who watch the new edits feed and make it a practice to correct them as quickly as possible on their own time. So you might be able to falsify a page for 20 minutes or so, but then someone would come back and check up on it. That's just how the system works.
I suppose I jumped on this issue because I think people don't really understand Wikipedia and it gets a lot of illegitimate flak as a result. A collaborative encyclopedia doesn't have to be "right" or "wrong" or a "good" or "bad" thing. In my view, it's mostly accurate, and a pretty good springboard for some of my academic papers, but you have to keep in mind how it works in order to use it properly. That's what we should be teaching the kids in school. Because if we don't we haven't taught them anything about how to find truth except that some places are good sources and others are bad. And I don't think that's a good enough education.
More Wikipedia Propaganda
July 9, 2008 - 20:24 ET by PopularTechPlease prove that a page is guaranteed to be accurate within 20 minutes of a "bad" edit.
No you really don't understand Wikipedia and are spouting off propaganda based on emotional wishful thinking of how it works.
AGAIN, your "opinion" is not scientific fact. No one cares about your "view" only about reality.
My kids are taught never to believe ANYTHING on Wikipedia because I actually explain to them how it works.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
OK, here's an example...
July 9, 2008 - 15:02 ET by PoseidonThe detailed causes of the recent warming remain an active field of research, but the scientific consensus [The work of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) represents the consensus of the international scientific community on climate change science] is that the increase in atmospheric greenhouse gases due to human activity caused most of the warming observed since the start of the industrial era. This attribution is clearest for the most recent 50 years, for which the most detailed data are available. Some other hypotheses departing from the consensus view have been suggested to explain most of the temperature increase. One such hypothesis proposes that warming may be the result of variations in solar activity.
Wiki had to qualify their "consensus view" in the footnotes though I doubt they see it that way. The scientific input to the IPCC was limited to agreeable views. Any opposing view was shunned or ridiculed. So, the input is controlled, or altered, and "shazzam" we have a consensus. This is sort of like the DNC convention where it's determined that there's a "national consensus" that B. Hussein Obama should be POTUS...they only hear what they want to be true. It seems to me that every basis you sight for your arguments neglects the bias/agenda driven ideology of the source.
First, I'll conceded
July 9, 2008 - 15:24 ET by Remixer96First, I'll conceded Wikipedia could be wrong, I havne't been aruging for perfection.
Second, the IPCC may not represent a consensus. I believe it was intended to and that it made a good faith effort to be so. As I understand it, the structure is very bureacratic, which doesn't exactly lend itself to extreme points of view either:
"The Reagan administration wanted to forestall pronouncements by self-appointed committees of scientists, fearing they would be 'alarmist.' Conservatives promoted the IPCC's clumsy structure, which consisted of representatives appointed by every government in the world and required to consult all the thousands of experts in repeated rounds of report-drafting in order to reach a consensus."
http://www.hnn.us/articles/30148.html
Gameable? Possibly. But if you can't trust that scientific opinon, of multiple scientists from across the world scanning myriad scientific papers, then what can you trust?
It's easy to point out what isn't perfect, but at what point is "good enough" to be true?
intended to and that it made a good faith effort to be so.
July 9, 2008 - 17:39 ET by wizardjrIntended by whom? The scientists that gathered the data for this study generally tried to be 'honest' with their submittals. The scientists' reviews of what they had found tended to be forthright.
However...
What was published was created by politicians and not scientists. And it was published only after it was bent to the will of the Watermelons on the committee. Quite a number of the original scientific researchers quit the team and demanded their names be removed from the project once they saw the blatant political farce that ensued. The original draft had absolutely no reference to AGW as they couldn't identify any from the background noise. Still true today.
IPCC Consensus Propaganda
July 9, 2008 - 20:26 ET by PopularTechPlease show me the document signed by ALL the scientists who "contributed" to the IPCC report as actually endorsing it's final conclusions.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
Please who has refuted
July 9, 2008 - 16:35 ET by danboPlease who has refuted Pieser? Fact is, his study brings into question of the verifiability of Oreskes study.
"There is a clear attempt to establish truth not by scientific methods but by perpetual repetition."
- Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D. Professor of Meteorology, MIT
So I'm Curious
July 9, 2008 - 19:22 ET by Solid Snakehas anyone gone and read the current entries regarding "global climate change warming cooling"? I looked up "climate change" on WkPd and that took me to Global Warming which led to "deniers" which led to "Skeptics"... It's astonishing how far down the rabbit hole you can go! It's a complete mess.
God bless
Update: Looks like CBS Posted this too
July 10, 2008 - 00:25 ET by PopularTechWikipropaganda On Global Warming (CBS News)
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
PT
July 10, 2008 - 00:45 ET by Noel SheppardPT,
They've got an arrangement with NRO. Doesn't mean they agree with the piece. ns
Makes Sense
July 10, 2008 - 01:12 ET by PopularTechInteresting I had no idea that CBS News has been posting NRO pieces since 2004. It shows you how much I read CBS's website.
The Anti 'Man-Made' Global Warming Resource
OMG! I know Connelly, he hates me!
July 10, 2008 - 06:35 ET by BritcomLink >>
---
Sen. John McCain (2003):
"...I am proud to say that I was born in your country"