If I am ever bored or feeling down I often turn to the Wikipedia article on Global warming to get a laugh – almost invariably it turns up trumps.
So what was it today?
There was a time a few years ago when I noticed a day on the Wikipedia article when there was no change. That in itself was a landmark. When I tried to edit the article there were dozens if not hundreds of edits a day.
Today, I noticed that almost for the whole of July (if we exclude formatting changes and reverted edits) there had only been one substantive change. What was that change? A familiar named editor “Enescot” (usually meaning a warmist) made the change:
Future warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe.
Changed to:
Future climate change and associated impacts will vary from region to region around the globe.
And the reason given:
Enescot . . (Slight change in lead. Most – but not all – regions will experience warming, so “climate change” is a better term to use)
So what? “Most – but not all”. Or to put that another way, from “every area will warm” it has become “on average more areas will warm than cool”, which is exactly how most sceptics would express the small impact of CO2.
But more importantly, I have long argued that there is no such thing as “Global warming” because unless you specify the time period it is just a nonsensical idea. E.g. we have warmed since the ice age, cooled since the time of the dinosaurs and no doubt the world warms and cools as it gets nearer and farther from the sun each year.
So, in reality the Wikipedia article “Global warming” was pure and simple propaganda with the message “mankind is warming the planet”. A message we all know is false as it is currently not warming: a message which the zealots who run Wikipedia would never allow to be diluted. And yes, for a while I tried to get them to change the name to something that was less obviously biased like “Manmade Climate Change” but no.
Fortunately people have far more common sense than those editing the article because calling it “Global warming” when it is not warming is tantamount to putting a notice up saying “Nothing in this article can be taken as true!” So, the result has been that the article (much like the idea of Wikipedia neutrality) has died on a its feet. It is there in name, but the number of active editors have plummeted, those who do contribute clearly have no knowledge of the climate.
Now we have effectively had the first month where the only change was “sceptical” … to do what I suggested a long time ago: change “Global warming” into “Climate change” … and note it was not even “man-made climate change” … in other words it now admits what we sceptics have been saying all along: “the climate changes”.
Surely editors can make changes to Wikipedia, but since NPOV is important, not only must they state a reason for changes, but they must state an external source, so we can be sure that it is not just there own opinion. If the info was correct before then what new external source does the editor base the new wording on.
Stewgreen. I started editing climate articles when I accepted the “consensus” that humans were causing catastrophic change. It was seeing the totally scandalous behaviour of editors on Wikipedia (many of whom were clearly climate “scientists”) which forced me to check out what I was being told with the result I had not choice but to become sceptical on the climate.
I saw organised gangs of what I can only describe as bullies forcing out anyone who dared to contribute to the article. To put it in perspective I spent about a week trying to moderate a discussion about something called “the hockey stick”. I didn’t (at that time) know what it was but even though I accepted global warming I could see it had to be included in the article. But eventually I realised that no matter how long I tried to moderate between the two groups … the “alarmists” were in control and would never allow the hockey stick to get a fair mention.
doesn’t need global warming for the climate to change – from wet to dry climate / from winter into summer climate, BUT global warming doesn’t exist
confusing those two is a big dirty trick – i wish people can recognize the difference between the normal climatic changes and the phony GLOBAL warmings