It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

History of climate gets 'erased' online

page: 4
84
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:16 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dometheus
Great Article, S&F...

I Wonder (skipped most of the posts)

Has anyone ever backed up the Info somewhere?
I know when I go to Digg.com and I can't load the page due to server loads and such someone always posts a Mirror link for the article, a cached version.

I would like to D/L all the Original Climate Information Wiki had.

Any Tips, or leads?

End of Line......


Here's a great tip:

Read the posts.

If you had you'd realise that there's no independent verification of this because it's a lie.

The so-called "erased" entries were not deleted and are currently up and clearly sourced.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv

Originally posted by seethelight

Originally posted by the_denv

If Wikipedia was edited, so what? It has no credibility at all.

[edit on 22/12/2009 by the_denv]


The only people that think WIKI is not credible are people that can't read sources.


Sources are just another man or woman's opinion.

Let me give you an example. I was in a rock band who had the name of "insert some random name here" (I aint saying which band), and our name was established before some other band came along 3 years later, stole my bands name and now WIKIPEDIA state that this other band where the people who created the name! Which I know first hand that is it complete and utter lies.

I am a victim of Wikipedia fraud, I tried to delete and edit the information and give proof in the past. But guess what? Wikipedia deleted it!

About 6 months ago I was sent a legal document from this (now famous) band, stating that they would want my MySpace account because its the original name (URL) of my band, which they stole the name of. I replied to that legal document and have NEVER heard anything from it.

Blatant lies.

Sources? Are you serious? I am living proof of how fraudulent Wikipedia are, so please get off your high horse. This thread might be a hoax, but saying that Wikipedia is credible is the biggest piece of crap I have ever heard.

There is no way you could argue with my case, I am doing this legally through the courts. Wikipedia hosts lies and crap as well as facts. The very fact that you depend on Wikipedia and its sources, for truth, is worrying.

My reaction is due to your verbal attack on my intellect, do your own sourcing.


One more thing, sources don't just go to opinions. That's flatly untrue.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Geez Professor...posting articles that turn out to be complete BS, from sources like WND and authors who have been caught lieing repeatedly and who are often employed by oil companies...OPs concerning the GW issue..

It is a definite theme with you..Misinformation..clouding the debate with falsehoods and bunk articles..It makes me question your motives.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:25 AM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Wikipedia administrator are idiots , religious dumbass, mother F conformist : they only defend the mass media : the mass truth : that is a lie : you can't add something that is not verified by the masss media theoritically ,because of their stupid rules . I have two big problem with those stupid guy : they don't understand what is an encyclopedia (that should aggregerate all knowledge from everywhere ) : and neutrality is fallacious argument : in a totalitarism state : you say something to hard to accept you can't sorry bye, you add something that will never be "verified" by any stupid guy in the mainstream media : you cant : sorry.

Open encyclopedia : yeah sometimes : when they agree with what you add.

Wikipedia could become an another tool to control people mind !

THAT IS A TRUTH NOWADAYS.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight

Can you prove any of what you just said?

The fact is that WIKI never stated that your band stole the name, what probably happened was the other band, not WIKI's staff, deleted your stuff because they thought it wasn't true.

If you contact a MOD on wiki they will not ignore you.

PM your bands name and I will personally contact WIKI for you... but you'll also need to give me some proof as it sounds like the other band beat you to the punch as far as deleting your stuff.

WIKI has NO agenda (at least that I could ever reasonably establish.

If you go on their boards you'll see people of ALL STRIPES arguing their cases...

The trouble is that its huge and relies, for better and worse, on people not being dicks....

when they find someone being a dick, they deal with it... I've seen it happen repeatedly.

I'm sorry you've had bad luck, but that doesn't mean that all material on WIKI is false or written to an editorial agenda... it just doesn't.

Learn to use their system and it'll work for you as long as you can back up your posts.


Yeah I can prove all that I said. Wiki never said I stole the name, its the other way around. I created the name for my rock band (which is now broke up) back in 2005, before another band came along and stole our name. The Wiki was our bands, then this new band hijacked the Wikipage and deleted all my bands information and replaced it with their own. They think they can do this because they are more famous than my band, but its not their name. They also come from the same country as me. I will U2U you the link to the wiki.

I have about 300 people, maybe even more, than can verify my bands name in 2005 before the creation of this other band.

I have done the whole "email the MODs at Wiki thing", nothing ever came from it. They don't care.
Thanks for the "Im sorry you've had badluck", but...at the end of the day, if the truth about my band is not heard, then it is an example of an editorial agenda.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:42 AM
link   

Originally posted by psychederic
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


Wikipedia administrator are idiots , religious dumbass, mother F conformist : they only defend the mass media : the mass truth : that is a lie : you can't add something that is not verified by the masss media theoritically ,because of their stupid rules . I have two big problem with those stupid guy : they don't understand what is an encyclopedia (that should aggregerate all knowledge from everywhere ) : and neutrality is fallacious argument : in a totalitarism state : you say something to hard to accept you can't sorry bye, you add something that will never be "verified" by any stupid guy in the mainstream media : you cant : sorry.

Open encyclopedia : yeah sometimes : when they agree with what you add.

Wikipedia could become an another tool to control people mind !

THAT IS A TRUTH NOWADAYS.


OK, where to begin:

I'm not sure that you understand what Wiki is about. You seem to think it's supposed to compile ALL information, even false information.

That seems a bit odd.

As for WIKI's staff -- well, they're certainly NOT ALL RELIGIOUS.

And many of them are pretty darn clever.

I'm not sure if you think they should allow people to just post whatever they want, but that would undermine their usefullness.

If I wanted to say that earth was 20 years old, should I be allowed to be?

Of course not... I can only assume at this point you agree with that.

So if I can't post things you think are false, what standard can be devised to maintain a reasonably honest open system?

Well, the answer is simple: sourcing.

Wiki will let me post info as long as I have a valid source for it.

What's valid mean?

Well, if I make a website that says the earth is 20 years old as use that as a source for my article, they will delete it, because:

1. No one believe that and
2. My website isn't a valid source.

Is the system perfect? No. Is any? No.

If some of you have problems, why not TRY talking to WIKI?

I've tried, it works.

Until you do, its seems pretty unfair to complain about them.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:44 AM
link   

Originally posted by the_denv

Originally posted by seethelight

Can you prove any of what you just said?

The fact is that WIKI never stated that your band stole the name, what probably happened was the other band, not WIKI's staff, deleted your stuff because they thought it wasn't true.

If you contact a MOD on wiki they will not ignore you.

PM your bands name and I will personally contact WIKI for you... but you'll also need to give me some proof as it sounds like the other band beat you to the punch as far as deleting your stuff.

WIKI has NO agenda (at least that I could ever reasonably establish.

If you go on their boards you'll see people of ALL STRIPES arguing their cases...

The trouble is that its huge and relies, for better and worse, on people not being dicks....

when they find someone being a dick, they deal with it... I've seen it happen repeatedly.

I'm sorry you've had bad luck, but that doesn't mean that all material on WIKI is false or written to an editorial agenda... it just doesn't.

Learn to use their system and it'll work for you as long as you can back up your posts.


Yeah I can prove all that I said. Wiki never said I stole the name, its the other way around. I created the name for my rock band (which is now broke up) back in 2005, before another band came along and stole our name. The Wiki was our bands, then this new band hijacked the Wikipage and deleted all my bands information and replaced it with their own. They think they can do this because they are more famous than my band, but its not their name. They also come from the same country as me. I will U2U you the link to the wiki.

I have about 300 people, maybe even more, than can verify my bands name in 2005 before the creation of this other band.

I have done the whole "email the MODs at Wiki thing", nothing ever came from it. They don't care.
Thanks for the "Im sorry you've had badluck", but...at the end of the day, if the truth about my band is not heard, then it is an example of an editorial agenda.


If I can help you resolve this, will you revise your ideas about WIKI?

I genuinely can't begin to think why WIKI would care about something like this... unless there's an actual legal ruling int he favour of the other band...

???

Please do send me the link and I'll try and help.

I may be a dick, but I'm a helpful dick.




posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 11:51 AM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
If you had you'd realise that there's no independent verification of this because it's a lie.

The so-called "erased" entries were not deleted and are currently up and clearly sourced.


I'm a member of another board where there are TWO Wikipedia editors who have been involved behind the scenes for years (I've read the threads and discussions there but am not part of the Wikipedia team.) They both said the same thing that you are -- the "erased entries" weren't deleted (and I've read up on the Medieval Warm Period for a discussion somewhere within the past year.)

The original source of the misinformation is an op-ed piece by another Wikipedia editor, Lawrence Solomon, who writes for a blog called National Post. network.nationalpost.com... He writes very vociferously about climate change (he doesn't believe in it) and, in fact, is (to quote his own press) "...one of Canada's leading environmentalists."

The National Post has been criticized for publishing misinformation (including one about Muslims making Jews wear badges (as the Nazis did in WWII)) and are criticised for not doing good fact checking.

This article appears to be Solomon with an axe to grind. His recent articles (basically "humans are blameless and scientists don't know nuffin") are getting rather shrill. I don't respect his exaggeration and I certainly don't respect him for writing an error-filled hatchet job when HE is a Wikipedia editor and not only knows how things work but also has access to the original data. I don't know if he just didn't look things up or if he's being deliberately mean.

But that's not good journalism.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:14 PM
link   
reply to post by ProfEmeritus
 


where was it erased? It's quite easy to find out about from many sources including wikipedia?

Not sure what the idea is here, but if it is to say that someone alters wikipedia entries, then that is simply a non-starter. Of course they do! lol

anyway, it is easy enough to find out about this period in history and the mini ice age that followed it and had sweet nothing to do with industrialization.

People KNOW this is fraud and an attempt at globalisation and implementation of new taxes and new wealth flow to the upper 5%.

What people really need to watch for is not this. It is something entirely different and so far, is not even on these pages, but then, this site has a tendency to linger in 1978 a lot it seems.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:17 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight

One of the major problems I have with the whole Global Warming idea is that those who promote it usually base their promotion on the words of individuals rather than on a personal understanding of the facts. You appear to be no different. Allow me to expound on this statement.


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

Now that is actually a very valid concern. But you go on:

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.

Basically what you are claiming here is collusion and insincerity. That's fine, until we start examining the person who actually brought Global Warming to the attention of the public. That's right, the illustrious 'inventor if the Internet', self-proclaimed naturalist (who can get lost in a park and have to be rescued), tobacco farmer (who probably never held a tobacco leaf), Senator (in his father's corrupt footprints), used-to-be-next-President-of -the-United-States (that would be called a 'failure')... Mr. Albert Gore Jr.

His documentary, "An Inconvenient Truth" relied more heavily on shock and heartstring-tugging than on science, but he did include a little bit of science... like forgetting to mention that the historic temperature curves and carbon dioxide levels were misleading in that temperature preceded carbon dioxide levels, or that trees 'breath out' carbon dioxide in the winter... nice little 'facts'. So nice, in fact, that the documentary was forced to carry a disclaimer in the UK, lest it be confused with science. Yeah... real trustworthy fellow you have working on your side there. A Democrat too, lifelong and active to the extreme.

Let's see what else you said...

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.

Ah, so someone debunked his website. Nice. Who debunked it? How? what data was used? how did that data debunk his claims? Oops, forgot to tell us that... a little sketchy, perhaps?


A 'failed Republican politician'... as opposed to a 'successful Democrat politician'? Do I see a bit of political bias in a 'scientific' endeavor here? And don;t forget, the trademark of any successful politician is how well they lie. So in other words, we should believe the successful Al Gore over the unsuccessful Lawrence because Gore is better at lying? Or because he's a Democrat who's better at lying?

Ah, but there's more...

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

I just looked up 'lasagna' on Wikipedia. Now I am not exactly a chef; I have burned ice cubes before. As a matter fact, I am forbidden to enter my own kitchen, as well as that of most of my friends! I am the last person on Earth to ask advice on cooking from, yet there was this cute little edit button alongside the article. When I clicked on it, I got a page with the article in a nice little edit box and this wording at the top:

You are not currently logged in. Editing this way will cause your IP address to be recorded publicly in this page's edit history. If you create an account, you can conceal your IP address and be provided with many other benefits. Messages sent to your IP can be viewed on your talk page.
Please do not save test edits. If you want to experiment, please use the sandbox.
Source: en.wikipedia.org...

Interesting. No need to explain my credentials or qualifications was requested, much less required. It even tells me how to conceal my identity when I edit. I wonder if a chef could edit the page on greenhouse gases?

Of course they could.

Wikipedia makes a great resource site; it is easy to use and research through. It is also, however, easy to edit by anyone who wishes to do so, and therefore must never be taken as completely factual. Luckily, the sources listed typically have much more factual evidence.

So... when you state "Wiki's [writers] is scientists", you project at the least a lack of sincerity or information, and at the worst a lie.

OK, what about the next post...

Originally posted by seethelight
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.

Pray tell, what source are you using to find this information? Do you have access to the server logs of wikipedia.com? And if you do, what guarantee do you have that those have not been altered? You are aware that any electronic medium is subject to easy alteration, correct?

Next post...

Originally posted by seethelight
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.

((snip))

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).

More interjection of politics. Are all Republicans 'oil-industry shills'? Are there no 'oil-industry shills' among Democrats? My, my, my, what a simple world we apparently live in, one where Republicans never tell the truth and Democrats never lie... sorry, but allow me to burst that bubble with this 'pin of reality' I am holding:

Republicans lie; Democrats lie; politicians lie. But sometimes they tell the truth if that helps a lie.

Republicans support big oil; Democrats support big oil; politicians support big oil.
It's about the money, and both heads of the one snake are trying for the same things: money and power.

Next post...

Originally posted by seethelight
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.

OK, so now anyone who thinks (or ever thought) that quarantine for a contagious, 100% fatal disease is unable to be trusted again. Oh, and of course anyone who is a Freemason cannot possibly be truthful.


Do you hear yourself?

Are you aware that at one point in time, AIDS was considered to be much more contagious than it was later found to be? At that time many people were supportive of quarantine, probably because AIDS is fatal. Quarantine is a last resort to control a deadly, contagious affliction.

Thankfully we now know that AIDS can be prevented from spreading in less drastic ways.

As to Freemasonry, exactly what evidence do you have that a Freemason is incapable of stating factual information?

Next post...

Originally posted by seethelight
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.

Well, if 535 scientists found something to be 'not hugely inaccurate', that must mean is 100$ factual. Well, except that the US Congress is not exactly a scientific research group... actually, most of them wouldn't know a test tube from a soldering iron. Oh, yes, and since when did 'not hugely inaccurate' equate to factual?

Relying on politicians rather than 'scientists', eh?

Next post...

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

((snip))

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.

I have to ask this: If, as has been predicted by some, the US Congress in 2010 becomes primarily Republican, will you still consider them 'scientists'?

That must be one long list of 'untrustworthy sources' you have. Please feel free to add me in, preferably at the top of the page.

I would consider it an honor.

Next...

Originally posted by seethelight
didn't you guys all claim the Nobel Prize was worthless garbage cause Obama won it?

I do not claim; I state. And not just because of Obama... because of Al Gore Yassir Arafat, and yes, Barack Obama.

The Nobel Prize, once the most highly esteemed award known, is today just an Oscar for political idealogues.


And like I said, the original chart has been shown to not be manipulated, but instead came from a limited number of data points.

In 2007 (maybe 2008) the guys went back and revised the chart including a LOT more data and guess what... the same outcome.

Wow, if 'some guys' added 'some data' back in 'some year' and they liked the results, that must mean everything is settled.


Thank you for being so specific and scinetific.

And on down the page...

Originally posted by seethelight
If I claimed that Global Warming was a myth AND I claimed that the moon was made of snails you'd have every right to question my sanity and my veracity.

Absolutely! A great point! But I have to add, that in the above example, you would be correct 50% of the time, not 0%.

One is not necessarily indicative of the other. A false belief does not invalidate everything else one believes. At the most, it casts aspersions on other beliefs and brings out a need for further verification.

At the least it means you like snails way too much.

I'll stop here... for now.

TheRedneck



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:33 PM
link   
You can rewrite history all you want, there will still be stupid people who listen to al gore.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 12:41 PM
link   
I have noticed history is being re-written on line during the past year or two.

There have been times I have quoted material I have found only to go back a week or so later and it has been completely removed.

This is how they will steal the internet away from the truth seekers.

It will be quiet, sly, incremental steps.


What can we do to stop the blackmail and manipulations?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by TheRedneck
 



Originally posted by seethelight
That's the source for Lawrence's "TRUTH" about the Medieval Warm Period, Wiki's is scientists



Originally posted by TheRedneck
So... when you state "Wiki's [writers] is scientists", you project at the least a lack of sincerity or information, and at the worst a lie.


Yes. Practically anyone can “edit” Wiki. It does have “reviewers”, but more to the point he stated “source”…not “writers” as you inserted.

He was referring to the sources for the written material at the end of the Wikipedia page which do in fact link to scientific research or “scientists”.


Originally posted by TheRedneck
Basically what you are claiming here is collusion and insincerity. That's fine, until we start examining the person who actually brought Global Warming to the attention of the public. [insert Al Gore].


Portraying the conclusions of the vast majority of scientists that are actually qualified to analyze Global Warming as Al Gore’s pet issue…well that is..how did you put it?.....


at the least a lack of sincerity or information, and at the worst a lie.


In actuality the person who most prminently brought Global Warming to the attention of the public was James Hansen, head of the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies.

I’ll source Wikipedia, just for fun

en.wikipedia.org...

He is not as fun to slam as Al Gore, but I have no doubt there is plenty of available sources within the denier movement that can be found doing just that. Have at it.

You know I respect you Red, but I gotta call BS when I see it



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by heyo
Hmmm. Apparently they WEREN'T taken out of context after all. It's amazing what people will do to convince us that the 5% of co2 that is caused by humans, a gas that makes up 9-26% of total greenhouse gasses, which themselves make up 1% of the atmosphere is going to destroy the planet.
5% of 17% is worth a lot these days.


Strange I responded to your question about CO2 on your other thread where you asked for an explanation and you did not respond. Seeing as you are still wondering how CO2 contributes to global warming I will try again here…maybe I am just pretending you actually want answers?


Originally posted by heyo
reply to post by maybereal11
 

You basically said I could stick with whatever opinion fits my world view. You then said you, on the other hand would, would vet the science. I'd be interested to see the science that shows CO2 is the cause of temperature rise. Honestly.


INCREASED CO2 (beyond what the planet would produce absent the sourcing and burning of ancient fossil fuel reserves that have been stored from eons ago) is ONE of the factors causing temperature rises beyond what the natural system would typically produce.

CO2 is good and neccessary for the maintenance of a given temperature on our planet.

CO2 is naturally circulated regulated within the system to maintain the temperature that our current civilization has evolved in.

Tapping into ancient reserves and injecting that additional CO2 into the system elevates the CO2 beyond what nature would create otherwise.

This will likely not "destroy" the earth at all...but it will increase temperatures and human civilization is more fragile than we think.

We should not expect the planet to maintain the temperature that is best suited for us humans...nature doesn't care...Tsunamies, Hurricanes, Tornados...nature isn't thinking about mankind first.

Nature does alter temperatures...but slowly...typically on a scale we can adapt to...injecting additional CO2 into the system...beyond the natural levels that would exist absent drilling and adding fossil fuel CO2 from the past....accelerates temperature increases.

How?

Imagine your house as a perfectly insulated entitiy.

You have vents in your attic that allow heat to escape that are relatively small in comparison to the rest of the house and all of the well insulated walls and roof etc.

CO2 is a strong determinate of the size of those vents.

The more CO2...the smaller the vents...
less CO2 and the vents are larger...

If the vents were gigantic...Not enough CO2..too much heat escapes and the house is freezing..

If the vents are too small or closed...too much CO2 ...the house gets too hot and wet...mold etc. Or in the case of the earth...species migration...melting glaciers..ocean acidification...rising sea levels...all happening at a pace that would not happen without us adding more CO2.

Nature has systems in place to create and circulate CO2 which keep those vents the right size to keep our temperatures at a historically "natural" level....and when those vents grow or shrink they are done gradually by nature over a very long period of time.

How does CO2 function as a vent? Heat from the earth (Albedo) radiates outward in the Infra-red spectrum...water (H20) in the atomosphere serves as a great insulator and keeps a good deal of that heat from escaping into space.

Nature's genius is that in the IR Spectrum (Heat from earth) there is a window of wavelength where water (H20) does not stop the heat from escaping. It is a window or vent that heat can escape through...and CO2 DOES cover that small window....Water Vapor does not..this is the "attic vent"...so the more CO2 we put into the system..this vent shrinks.

If the attic vent is set by nature to a given level...then we should respect natures wisdom in that choice and not close that attic vent with CO2 and other GHGs, accelerating temperature increases and somehow just assume nature will look out for mankind...she won't.

This is why the whole "CO2 is good, plants love it!" line of propaganda is silly.

It is like saying heat is good...of course it is, unless you get too much and get burned...water is good..yes, unless you are drowning..etc. etc.

Here is a rough explanation of the attic window along with a graph showing the "attic vent". The window wher H2O doesn't stop escaping heat, but CO2 and other ghg do.

www.bwebcentral.com...



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:33 PM
link   
Science done with preconceived notions is not science at all. It is religion.

How does this surprise anyone?



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:38 PM
link   
reply to post by seethelight
 


delusional democrat whiny baby likes to derail threads. If you can't open your mind to the mountain of allegations here. And if your willing to believe this data then you are lost beyond reasoning. Why sit and hyjack a thread into complete domination of your posts. Your completely annoying to the core of your being. You must be so proud of yourself, you democratic hero you.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:44 PM
link   
reply to post by maybereal11
 


It's only bunk because you don't agree with it, but....it's not actually bunk it's sound accusatory information, how people accept it is completely subjective, as is yours and that dem shill's bias clearly shows. All yall's BS is gettin desperate, you people, the party, these rogue GW's acting like a defeated opponent backed into a corner saying anything to get out, you even believe your own BS. Pathetic!



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by seethelight
If I can help you resolve this, will you revise your ideas about WIKI?


Personally I dont think you could resolve it for me, if you did I would thank you. I wont revise my ideas about Wikipedia, not ever. Although I will revise my ideas about you


I have legal documents from their solicitor wanting to buy my bands Myspace, I sent them a reply over half a year ago. So, if my legal replies via solicitor don't change anything I don't think you could, but heh if you could that would be great



Originally posted by seethelight
I genuinely can't begin to think why WIKI would care about something like this... unless there's an actual legal ruling in the favour of the other band...


Wikipedia doesn't care probably due to money or donations from the famous band who stole my bands name. There could be other reasons. There also could not be any legal ruling that the other band has, because I live in the same country as them and have hundreds of witnesses, a website (constructed in 2005 owned my my band), pictures and a video of one of the gigs we played prior to this "famous" band took our name. Yet Wikipedia allows them to hijack my bands Wikipedia page? Hmm...editorial bias? Or money?



Originally posted by seethelight
Please do send me the link and I'll try and help.


Not a problem, I already sent you the info and you replied back
Just acknowledging it for public notice. Several links were given. I don't expect it from you to do anything, especially since you got long posts to reply to above this one; it might take you a while






[edit on 22/12/2009 by the_denv]



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:13 PM
link   
If members had taken time to actually READ the ENTIRE article, and then go to the links in it, you would see that INDEED they DID delete the claimed items. In addition, if you would take the TIME, you can find all of the evidence of Connelley's removals:

Here is his log:

en.wikipedia.org...:Contributions&dir=prev&limit=100&target=William+M.+Connolley


User contributions From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
For William M. Connolley (talk | block log | logs | filter log)





From the original article in the OP:

Beginning in February 2003, Connolley rewrote Wikipedia entries on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the instrumental temperature record, the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling, according to the report. In February, he began editing the Little Ice Age. By August, he began to rewrite history without the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned to the hockey-stick chart.



From the log of Connelley's :


# 20:45, 16 February 2003 (hist | diff) m Global warming ‎ (Rewrite intro to hist t record)


There are HUNDREDS of entries in that time period for Connelley, along with comments.

The article is NOT false. People just need to READ.



posted on Dec, 22 2009 @ 03:58 PM
link   
Not sure if you are aware but Channel 4 are doing a cracking series called "Man on Earth", explaining how climate change has affected man's environment in the past. While not commenting on the current situation. the message is clear - the climate does change and quite radically and we (man) has had to adapt to the changes or move out or die.

Link below:
Channel 4 - Man on Earth

Plenty of examples: North Africa when it was savannah and not a desert;




top topics



 
84
<< 1  2  3    5  6 >>

log in

join