Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

History of climate gets 'erased' online

page: 2
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:23 AM
link   

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
www.wnd.com...



History of climate gets 'erased' online
More than 5,000 entries tailored to hype global-warming agenda

A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message.

Recently hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit expose a plot to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, a 400-year era that began around A.D. 1000, the Financial Post's Lawrence Solomon reports.

The warming period is said to have improved agriculture and increased life spans, but scientists at the center of the Climategate e-mail scandal believed the era undermined their goal of spreading concern about global warming as it pertains to today's climate.

Solomon noted the warming period presented a dilemma long before the Climategate e-mail scandal.

A 1995 e-mail predating the recent Climate Research Unit scandal was sent to geophysicist David Deming. A major climate-change researcher told Deming, "We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period."

Some scientists later expressed concern about erasing the period.




Another case of revisionist history, tailored to fit the needs of the GW advocates. Their version of the scientific method consists of throwing out anything that does not fit neatly into their misguided theories. That include not only data, but rewriting 400 years of history to try to erase the Medieval Warming Period that occurred starting at around 1000CE.

For those that prefer REAL history, rather than GW revisionist lies, please refer to this link:
www.theresilientearth.com.../medieval-warm-period-rediscovered
An excerpt follows:



Medieval Warm Period Rediscovered
Submitted by Doug L. Hoffman on Tue, 04/07/2009 - 12:38

A recent article in the journal Science has provided a new, detailed climate record for the Medieval Climate Anomaly (MCA), also know as the Medieval Warm Period. It was the most recent pre-industrial warm period, noted in Europe and elsewhere around the globe. The researchers present a 947-year-long multi-decadal North Atlantic Oscillation (NAO) reconstruction and find a persistent positive NAO during the MCA. The interesting thing is that the MCA had basically been removed from the climate record by Michael Mann's infamous “hockey stick” history graph that was adopted by the IPCC a decade ago.

More interesting, Trouet et al., based their work in part on a tree-ring–based drought reconstruction for Morocco (1049–2002) and a millennial-length speleothem-based precipitation proxy for Scotland (900–1993), a methodology similar to Mann's work. Unlike Mann, these researchers found significant climate warming during the MCA. According to the report: “The Morocco and Scotland reconstructions contain substantial multi-decadal variability that is characterized by antiphase oscillatory behavior over the last millennium.” Their reconstruction can be seen in the figure from the article seen below.



I suggest that those that are interested in the details, please peruse the link, as it provides charts and data that are quite interesting.
In concluding, the link concludes:


The bottom line? Once again the climate models used by the IPCC and other climate catastrophists are shown to be inaccurate, incomplete and not up to the job of predicting future climatic conditions.



Honestly, most of this is probably untrue or taken out of context.

Here's why:

Lawrence references a new "report," but never tells you the name of the report or who wrote it.

That's sketchy.

Lawrence is also a WELL KNOWN oil industry shill who's bias is well documented.

He's written a much maligned (for twisting facts) book about Climate Change and has repeatedly taken money from such discredited groups as CEI, whose work was so flawed Exxon Mobile cut ties with them.

Lawrence also doesn't bother to tell you what changes were made in many of these instances. Were the entries actually made better or worse? We don't know.

Here's a good debunking of this bunk:

yetanotheratheistblog.wordpress.com...

At least its a place to start.

Here's more:

bigcitylib.blogspot.com...

Oh and BTW, here's the wiki link to the Little Ice Age:

en.wikipedia.org...

And a link to the wiki page for the Medieval Warm Period:

en.wikipedia.org...

^^^^^^

I guess they weren't deleted after all.


And a review of his book:

www.newenglishreview.org...


So yeah, file this whole thing under the heading HOAX.

One more thing, The Resilient Earth website has been debunked so many times you'd have to laugh to avoid crying.

Not only is it "written" by a failed Republican politician, but it often links to article LONG after they've been thoroughly discredited...

This guy also considers himself to be a Tea-Partier and a 9/12er... so basically a little Glenn Beck wannabe.

That's the source for Lawrence's "TRUTH" about the Medieval Warm Period, Wiki's is scientists.

You decide who you wanna trust:

Glenn Beck clone/CPA/Failed Republican Politician/Liar

or

Scientists


Pretty easy choice for me.

[edit on 22-12-2009 by seethelight]




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:31 AM
link   
I'm completely unsurprised, btw., that none of you, including the OP, bothered to see if the entries on WIKI were actually erased, which they aren't.

So typical.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 07:34 AM
link   



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


really ????

my post

clearly cites that wiki does refference the medieval warm period in another article

please read the thread before making such sweeping generalisations



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:20 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


wiki edits can be undone

representative example

note the most recent edits - to remove vandalism

what do you think that means ??????????



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:27 AM
link   

Originally posted by ignorant_ape
reply to post by seethelight
 


wiki edits can be undone

representative example

note the most recent edits - to remove vandalism

what do you think that means ??????????


I would guess, based on what it says, that someone like you vandalised the site with nonsense which came from Republicans or Oil Industry insiders.

And btw a reference to something isn't what your article states, it states they were ERASED...which can't be true as they are right there, easily viewable and referenced to the hilt.

If you wanna debate this fine, but accept that your sources are all partisan political or Oil/Business sources. The authors work has been largely discredited and that website you link to is a front for the Republican Party (written by a Republican politician...a failed one at that).

Oh yeah and the WingNutDaily isn't considered to be much more than a repository for all the crazy right-wing emails that circulate. In other words most of that # aint true.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:46 AM
link   
This thread gives insight into the mind of a psychopath, for what we have here is an aspect of ponerology.

Psychopaths are ego motivated and form no love based attachments in their life. They suffer from emotional atrophy, and as such are stuck in the narcissistic "me me me" phase of a 3 year old. This has some astonishing implications, one of which is that they, the psychopaths, have no concept of objective reality. They function on a basis of declared reality, what they declare as real is what they think of, process, as real. This is why they are such pathological liars, because they, out of a disease of the emotions which affects their thought processes, literally have no concept of truth.

This episode, the complete rewriting of history with no respect to truth so as to promote a personal agenda, is typical of how a psychopath operates, and although there is a possibility that the person involved is a normal human with simply acquired psychopathic behavior patterns, I think it's more probable that this is actually a case of full blown psychopathy.

We can't trust recorded history much further back than a century, because it has been rewritten by psychopaths to further their own agendas, their combine of lies. This is a stable dynamic in human history, there are at this moment possibly around 350 million psychopaths in the total human population, spread out through all racial profiles more or less equally, although specific subgroups, such as for example the askhenazi, may or may not have slightly higher incidences they don't really alter the overall picture or dynamic. This is not a racial issue, it's a species issue. We have all met psychopaths. And I dare say that if we try we will all remember those vain, self important, lieing and manipulating types that always seem eager to take credit for the work of other. We have all met the parasite, if we remember we are all aware of the main problem behind human society and civilization.

This wikipedia and climategate related example is paradigmatic, kudos to the OP. Star and flag, so people become more aware of what is going on each and every day, all over the world. They live, they lie. It's time to wake up and free ourselves from their influence, throw them out into the sun and let them deal with their own worthlessness. For our own evolution into a better, more loving and balanced, species.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 08:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Mindmelding
This thread gives insight into the mind of a psychopath, for what we have here is an aspect of ponerology.

Psychopaths are ego motivated and form no love based attachments in their life. They suffer from emotional atrophy, and as such are stuck in the narcissistic "me me me" phase of a 3 year old. This has some astonishing implications, one of which is that they, the psychopaths, have no concept of objective reality. They function on a basis of declared reality, what they declare as real is what they think of, process, as real. This is why they are such pathological liars, because they, out of a disease of the emotions which affects their thought processes, literally have no concept of truth.

This episode, the complete rewriting of history with no respect to truth so as to promote a personal agenda, is typical of how a psychopath operates, and although there is a possibility that the person involved is a normal human with simply acquired psychopathic behavior patterns, I think it's more probable that this is actually a case of full blown psychopathy.

We can't trust recorded history much further back than a century, because it has been rewritten by psychopaths to further their own agendas, their combine of lies. This is a stable dynamic in human history, there are at this moment possibly around 350 million psychopaths in the total human population, spread out through all racial profiles more or less equally, although specific subgroups, such as for example the askhenazi, may or may not have slightly higher incidences they don't really alter the overall picture or dynamic. This is not a racial issue, it's a species issue. We have all met psychopaths. And I dare say that if we try we will all remember those vain, self important, lieing and manipulating types that always seem eager to take credit for the work of other. We have all met the parasite, if we remember we are all aware of the main problem behind human society and civilization.

This wikipedia and climategate related example is paradigmatic, kudos to the OP. Star and flag, so people become more aware of what is going on each and every day, all over the world. They live, they lie. It's time to wake up and free ourselves from their influence, throw them out into the sun and let them deal with their own worthlessness. For our own evolution into a better, more loving and balanced, species.


this would be interesting if the original post was true and not just propaganda.

way to star and flag propaganda.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:01 AM
link   
i can corroborate this, there's at least one other site (MSM net presence, though) featuring an article on the subject:



www.cbsnews.com...




... Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface....


it seems as if Wikipedia's main problem wasn't rogue editors scattering falsehoods throughout the database (noise), but an organised, internal effort to paint any desired (by whom?) picture (bias). such a systematic error appears to become inevitable once a certain threshold is passed as a project grows visible ('critical mass, so to speak).

i think it's time to address that issue rather than proceed with cyclically abandoning such efforts as they become infested by deceit.

[edit on 2009.12.22 by Long Lance]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:02 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance
i can corroborate this, there's at least one other site (MSM net presence, though) featuring an article on the subject:





... Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it - anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

I first noticed this when I entered a correction to a Wikipedia page on the work of Naomi Oreskes, author of the now-infamous paper, published in the prestigious journal Science, claiming to have exhaustively reviewed the scientific literature and found not one single article dissenting from the alarmist version of global warming.

Of course Oreskes’s conclusions were absurd, and have been widely ridiculed. I myself have profiled dozens of truly world-eminent scientists whose work casts doubt on the Gore-U.N. version of global warming. Following the references in my book The Deniers, one can find hundreds of refereed papers that cast doubt on some aspect of the Gore/U.N. case, and that only scratches the surface....


it seems as if Wikipedia's main problem wasn't rogue editors scattering falsehoods throughout the database (noise), but an organised, internal effort to paint any desired (by whom?) picture (bias). such a systematic error appears to become inevitable once a certain threshold is passed as a project grows visible ('critical mass, so to speak).

i think it's time to address that issue rather than proceed with cyclically abandoning such efforts as they become infested by deceit.


Again, this story isn't true. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:04 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight



this chart you used:


is very well explained by Lord Christopher Monckton in this clip (2:20):



and he says it's a fraud...

also, he is a scientist too, so I will take your advice and believe him...



[edit on 22-12-2009 by donhuangenaro]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:08 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight


Again, this story isn't true. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.



no source is trustworthy and i'm not talking about 100%. wikipedia is not an exception and the 'return on investment' is high when you get to influence and control the most used source on the internet.

as the medium's reach grows, so do the stakes. the MSM is just older, not that much different.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:13 AM
link   

Originally posted by donhuangenaro

Originally posted by seethelight



this chart you used:


is very well explained by Lord Christopher Monckton in this clip (2:20):



and he says it's a fraud...

also, he is scientists too, so I will take your advice and believe him...



Wow, the stupid is flying fast and thick...

A) He's not a scientist.

B) He also thinks people with AIDS ahould be put into camps FOREVER.

Sounds like a reasonable guy. Especially for a Freemason.

Oh yeah and he's also shown to be a liar:

"By that time, 500,000 puzzles had been sold. Monckton claimed that he had to sell his home, Crimonmogate, to pay the prize"

Unfortunately for him he had to admit that was a LIE.

So a lying businessman, who's not a scientist and thinks people with AIDS should be locked away forever. And a Freemason.

And his "beliefs" have been soundly debunked by a wide assortment of actual scientists.

So yeah, not a wise move trusting this guy.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:17 AM
link   
And btw., not only was that hockey-stick nonsense publicly studied by THE US CONGRESS who found it to not be hugely inaccurate, but the principal creators (scientists, btw.) went back and included numerous more data point (other than tree-rings) and came to the same conclusion.

Use google my friend.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by Long Lance

Originally posted by seethelight


Again, this story isn't true. So I wouldn't worry about it too much.



no source is trustworthy and i'm not talking about 100%. wikipedia is not an exception and the 'return on investment' is high when you get to influence and control the most used source on the internet.

as the medium's reach grows, so do the stakes. the MSM is just older, not that much different.


I'm gonna just go ahead and add you to the list of "untrustworthy sources".

The article states that the articles were erased. They are currently their and are clearly referenced to something other than a mysterious, possibly non-existent study referenced by a businessman/serial liar.

In other words, while no source is inherently 100% accurate, given the choice between the two sources here, I'll choose the majority of scientists over Republican hacks.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:33 AM
link   
reply to post by Long Lance
 



His contribution to the IPCC's Fourth Assessment Report in 2007 - the correction of a table inserted by IPCC bureaucrats that had overstated tenfold the observed contribution of the Greenland and West Antarctic ice sheets to sea-level rise - earned him the status of Nobel Peace Laureate

source

So the guy is a Nobel Peace Laureate, recieving such a title due to DEBUNKING an aspect of climate change is something that obviously discredits him


The rest of your post is just ad hominem attacks.

-actually, the fact that he corrected these apparent "scientists", and was widely recognized for pointing out their errors, says a lot about the abilities of these real scientists that you put your faith in. If he merely a policy maker, how does he catch a mistake that some 2000-2500 scientists miss?

[edit on 22-12-2009 by heyo]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


seethelight, you put forward an enormous effort to politisize this discussion, which essentially qualifies you as a certain party' hack, and since you are consistently bashing Republicans, the only choice for the party you are hacking for is Democratic. Your input for the discussion id mostly negative and personal, which is again, the Dem's trademark. Can you qualify your position towards the OP with any facts that escaped our attention, besides the personal attacks and Dem's talking points?
The facts of recent editing of many Wiki articles related to GW is indisputable. The famous "hockey stick" graph is proven to be a bad math artifact. The Medieval Warming data had been manipulated to diminish it's scope.
You have stated that you choose scientists over party hacks. Prove it.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:40 AM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


double post removed
sorry!

[edit on 22-12-2009 by ActuallyActuary]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:45 AM
link   
I would say that this post is no more propaganda than what the Global Warming alarmists have been spreading for the last several years.

I have noticed what I believe is a interesting trend on the internet.

In my opinion too many people are too reliant on the internet for information. To many, especially here on ATS, if it isn't on the internet then it didn't happen. To me this is a bad thing, because, it is too easy to edit, re-write or just plain delete internet entries. This post is based on the supposed deletion of Wikipedia entries concerning Global Warming. I'm not saying it did or did not happen, my point is that it is too easy for it to happen.

Yesterday an actress Brittany Murphy died. Saturday Night Live had done a skit based on an incident that she was involved in. This skit showed Murphy in a bad light. The skit was posted on the HULU website that is owned by NBC. Yesterday the skit was deleted from HULU. Poof Gone. While I understand that this was probably done out of respect for Murphy's memory and I actually applaud NBC's action.

A few weeks ago we had the flap over Rush Limbaugh being a partner in a group that was looking to buy an NFL team. A large stink was made over racial comments that were attributed to Limbaugh. The source for these comments was a book that was published in 2005. The author of the book claimed that the website Media Matters was his source for these comments. When I did a search on Media Matters website's archives the section for Limbaugh in 2005, 2004 and 2003 linked to nothing. Every other link for those years worked perfectly. I even went to "The Wayback Machine" site and found the same thing in their archives of the Media Matters website.

This attitude of if I can't link to it on the web then it doesn't exist and the ease that something can be removed from the internet does not bode well for the future. It makes revisionist history too easy.

My apologies if I went too far off topic here, but I felt it needed to be said.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 09:55 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight

A) He's not a scientist.

B) He also thinks people with AIDS ahould be put into camps FOREVER.



if he is not a scientist, why is he making a lecture to a room filled with scientists on a scientific conference in Berlin?



well, every man can have an opinion, but this thread is not about AIDS it is about fraudulent climate scientists who are deleting data to push someone's agenda...

it seems that you also have an agenda here to attack people and derail the thread from it's purpose

you are so transparent








top topics



 
84
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join