[stemmer]

Sounds like the BBC doesn't have the spine to speak out against the,lies and deceit over global warming....

Click on the video link below....

Quote:

http://www.abd.org.uk/news.htm

Proof that you can't trust BBC reports about climate change. CNN's Glenn Beck reveals how a green activist bullied a BBC reporter into rewriting a story....

[Blue_Nose]

I heard a very similar story a few months ago.


oh wait....

[Mr_Canada]

SILENCE!

[N_Fiddledog]

That's just the tip of the iceberg (hehe ) when it comes to stories about how the media stilts the global warming agitprop.

Another one of my personal favourites is the one concerning the hour long special 60 minutes did on the "warming Antarctic".

If you can ever get your hands on that comedy classic, you'll find our intrepid 60 minutes reporter wading through volcanic ash on what we're supposed to believe is an ice free antarctic, wondering where all the ice went. When I first saw it I thought he must have found some melted section of the north western peninsula. There's been some warming there, but the much greater majority of the continent is cooling. The ice extent there is at a record high.

But no, it turns out I was wrong. They were not on the peninsula. They were not even on the continent. It turned out they were on a small island to the north comparable to the latitude of Juneau Alaska only they were filming in the Southern Hemisphere summer.

That was CBS. Did you know Genral Electric owns NBC, and stands to make out like bandits if Cap n Trade goes through?

[Tracker]

Haha, too good.

[sandorski]

Is there a written article by anyone other than Glen(I wannabe Rush)Beck? Can't stand listening to that schmuck.

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski wrote:

Is there a written article by anyone other than Glen(I wannabe Rush)Beck? Can't stand listening to that schmuck.

There's tons of them, but mostly from blogs. The mainstream media won't touch these kinds of stories. Here's one from a blog on the activist Jo Abess manipulating the BBC thing though.

http://www.jennifermarohasy.com/blog/ar ... 02906.html

Here's another story which has been popular on the blogs lately. It concerns how an inner cabal of Wikipedia editors has been modifying articles to conform to their warmism ideology.

Wikipedia Zealots

[sandorski]

The Blog doesn't seem to show anything other than someone trying to keep an article accurate.

"Inner cabal", good god man. Wikipedia constantly checks things for Accuracy. It's not there for every man and his dog to just post whatever they want.

[N_Fiddledog]

sandorski wrote:

The Blog doesn't seem to show anything other than someone trying to keep an article accurate.

Go ahead. Believe that if you want. You're going to need more information if you hope to make it sound credible though. I'll help you out. Here's a search engine page on the subject.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=jo+abe ... -8&fr=moz2

Quote:

"Inner cabal", good god man. Wikipedia constantly checks things for Accuracy. It's not there for every man and his dog to just post whatever they want.

From many possible examples I'll choose one concerning the subject that particular blog spoke of. Wikipedia said Singer believed in Martians. Singer contacted them, and told them he didn't believe in Martians. The Wikipedia, editor, inner cabal didn't find Singer to be a credible source as to what he did, or didn't believe in.

Here's another one on how the lamescream media is a willing accomplice in the manipulation of the warmist message though. You might even be familiar with this one.

It concerns how the IPCC called a press conference claiming the science was showing hurricanes were going to become more intense as a result of global warming. The problem was the scientist actually writing the scientific report specifically told those guys the current science said that wasn't the case.

Christopher Landsea Screwed Over by IPCC - Media buys into bogus press release

[dino_bobba_renno]

sandorski wrote:

Is there a written article by anyone other than Glen(I wannabe Rush)Beck? Can't stand listening to that schmuck.

Ditto, that guy has about as much credibility in my eyes as the national inquirer or Bill O'Rilley.

I'm just not seeing how this constitutes a major "conspiracy". One person writing to a reporter who changes his story after only a couple of short email exchanges .... sounds more like a pretty piss poor weak kneed reporter but I wouldn't call it an act of extortion/blackmail or anything.

[Tracker]

Don't question Man Made Global Warming, or I will lauch an attack on you. I'm warning you, It's Real.

[sandorski]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

sandorski wrote:

The Blog doesn't seem to show anything other than someone trying to keep an article accurate.

Go ahead. Believe that if you want. You're going to need more information if you hope to make it sound credible though. I'll help you out. Here's a search engine page on the subject.

http://search.yahoo.com/search?p=jo+abe ... -8&fr=moz2

Quote:

"Inner cabal", good god man. Wikipedia constantly checks things for Accuracy. It's not there for every man and his dog to just post whatever they want.

From many possible examples I'll choose one concerning the subject that particular blog spoke of. Wikipedia said Singer believed in Martians. Singer contacted them, and told them he didn't believe in Martians. The Wikipedia, editor, inner cabal didn't find Singer to be a credible source as to what he did, or didn't believe in.

Here's another one on how the lamescream media is a willing accomplice in the manipulation of the warmist message though. You might even be familiar with this one.

It concerns how the IPCC called a press conference claiming the science was showing hurricanes were going to become more intense as a result of global warming. The problem was the scientist actually writing the scientific report specifically told those guys the current science said that wasn't the case.

Christopher Landsea Screwed Over by IPCC - Media buys into bogus press release

The "Cabal"?

They are merely working towards accuracy. Read the Discussion(it's long)concerning what should or shouldn't be on the Page. If you still think Wikipedia is conspiring against him, well, whatever man.

[N_Fiddledog]

The Real Climate Martians

By Lawrence Solomon

"Fred Singer, one of the world’s renowned scientists, believes in Martians. I discovered this several weeks ago while reading his biography on Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia. “Do you really believe in Martians?” I asked him last week, at a chance meeting at a Washington event. The answer was “No.”

Wikipedia’s error was neither isolated nor inadvertent. The page that Wikipedia devotes to what is ostensibly Fred Singer’s biography is designed to trivialize his long and outstanding scientific career by painting him as a political partisan and someone who “is best known as president and founder (in 1990) of the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which disputes the prevailing scientific views of climate change, ozone depletion, and second-hand smoke and is science advisor to the conservative journal NewsMax.”

Innocent Wikipedia readers would be surprised to learn that Dr. Singer is no conservative kook but the first director of the U.S. National Weather Satellite Center; the recipient of a White House commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of a commendation from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration for research on particle clouds; and the recipient of a U.S. Department of Commerce Gold Medal Award for the development and management of weather satellites.

He is, in short, a scientist of the highest calibre, with a long list of major scientific achievements, including the first measurements, with V-2 and Aerobee rockets, of primary cosmic radiation in space, the design of the first instruments for measuring ozone, and the authorship of the first publications predicting the existence of trapped radiation in the earth’s magnetic field to explain the magnetic-storm ring current.

Honest accounts of Fred Singer and his accomplishments have been available on Wikipedia, and on hundreds of occasions. Those occasions don’t last long, however — often just minutes — before the honest accounts are discovered and reverted by Wikipedians who troll the site. Such trolls continually monitor Wikipedia’s 10 million pages to erase any hint that the science is not settled on climate change. Dissenters by the dozens have been likewise demeaned — to check for yourself, just look up Richard Lindzen, Paul Reiter, or any of the other scientists or organizations that have questioned the orthodoxy on climate change.

In contrast to the high-handed treatment that greet global warming skeptics, those who support the orthodoxy are puffed up and protected from criticism, their errors erased and their controversies hushed.

This is the case with Naomi Oreskes, a scientist with a PhD who had arrived at an absurd finding: That no studies in a major scientific database questioned the UN view of climate change. To bolster her standing, those who troll for Wikipedia have done their best to dress up her CV — they note that she won a National Science Foundation’s Young Investigator Award in 1994, that she has been a consultant for various government agencies, and that in July she will become provost of an as-yet unnamed college of the University of California, San Diego. While these accomplishments are nothing to sneeze at, she is no Fred Singer.

In any event, her Wikipedia page is not really about her but her study, which has been thoroughly discredited by credible journalists and scientists. To suppress these critiques, the trollers apply Wikipedia’s bewildering rules as to what can and can’t appear, and when the rules are inadequate, the trollers make up new ones on the fly.

Several weeks ago, as I described in an earlier column, I attempted to correct passages on the Oreskes page that would lead readers to think her study had been vindicated and also to think that U.K. scientist Benny Peiser, one of her critics, had abjectly withdrawn his criticisms. Wikipedia’s rules thwarted me, used to revert my corrections, again and again. Those who came before me in attempting to make corrections, and, I would find out, those who came after, were similarly thwarted.

Wikipedia refused to accept Peiser’s critique, or his interpretation of his own views, or an account of his views that he had provided to me, or an account of his views published in a peer-reviewed journal, or an account of his views published in The Wall Street Journal, or an account of his views published by the U.S. Senate committee on environment and public works.

Instead, the Wikipedia trollers insisted that all of the above sources were disqualified or irrelevant under Wikipedia rules, and that the trollers’ own understanding of Peiser’s views trumped all others.

Just as the trollers insist on characterizing Fred Singer as believing in Martians. When it is the Wickipedian trollers who are from Mars."

Source

If you click the link there you'll find some interesting comments below the article. One is from a fellow editor at Wikipedia, and even he gets stuff reverted by Green Party Candidate (he always loses), Wikipedia lead editor, global warming activist, Wild Bill Connolley. That editor is not happy with Connolley's cabal either. If you read that particular editor's comments he sounds like a reasonable guy. He's even pro Wikipedia.

Here's a quote from another victim of the Wikipedia Cabal's massage the message campaign.

Quote:

Wikipedia had my birthdate in 1944. I corrected it to 1950. That stood for one day and then it was turned back. John Christy has told me he simply stopped putting in corrections because they were overwritten or disregarded.
--Pat Michaels, CCNet, 23 July 2008

and another discontent.

Quote:

There are no perfect human institutions, but some of us continually strive to make them as fair as possible. If Wikipedia can't reform itself, then the first social networking model that achieves significantly improved fairness will eventually sweep Wikipedia into deserved obsolescence.
--Tom Van Flandern, CCNet, 23 July 2008

And it isn't just the Wikipedia, warmism, editing cabal that likes to massage the message. Here's a recent one concerning a picture on the cover of a National Climatic Data Center report. Seriously you've gotta check this one out. This is a government organization, if you can believe that.

NCDC:]Photoshopping the climate change report for better impact

[sandorski]

When errors are pointed out to Wikipedia, they are corrected. It's as simple as that. You'll even notice that on Singers Wikipedia page the whole Martian thing has been removed from his Biography.

[N_Fiddledog]

Well yeah, once obvious, and outrageous excesses are pointed out in other media they're dealt with. Of course they are. For the present anyway. There's so much fundamentally wrong in the climate change section of Wikipedia though, no other media could hope to point out every incident. I'd love to take you phrase by phrase through the section on the hockey stick graph, and show you how it manipulates the information to present a biased point of view. I won't though. Let's face it, it would be a waste of time. You've already made up your mind, and nothing like reasonable argument is going to change it. I notice you're locked into the idea there is no complaint in spite of the evidence put before you clearly showing you there are complaints. A lot of them. Pat Michaels says he couldn't even edit in his correct birth date for God's sake.

Here's what the other editors of Wikipedia are going through when facing the climate cabal.

Quote:

User William M. Connolley (WMC) strongly pushes his POV with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own. His primary tactic for doing this is to use aggressive revert warring with no regard for discussion to establish consensus. This behavior has degraded a large number of articles into a battle of attentiveness, where the state of the article is determined entirely by who is around their computer to revert the articles most frequently, with no apparent aim of convergence around NPOV. William M. Connolley refuses to form consensus, accept compromise, or allow multiple perspectives to exist on controversial topics. His views on climate science are singular and narrow, which would not be at all a problem if he did not make it his ideal goal for Wikipedia to singularly represent his own view at whatever cost. Compromise is nearly impossible, because at best he treats compromise [1] as a delay until he can revert everything back to how he wants it again [2] [3]. The behaviors he has engaged in have resulted in the loss [4] to Wikipedia of a large number of good editors in the climate area, who left after finding his domination of those areas extremely difficult (or worse) to deal with.

If you want to set a standard of behavior for Wikipedia as a place where editorial consensus can be reached through mutual cooperation, then I ask you to take some sort of action now, because the climate related articles on Wikipedia are not in that state. I and many other editors interested in the topics, have better things to do with our time than sit around trying to revert pages to make sure our contributions aren't all systematically removed. The only cure for this is cooperative consensus, and we don't have it because WMC refuses to participate. Edit warring on every edit is not a solution, and I ask you to put a stop to it.

Wikipedia Edit War

And again, it isn't just the Wikipedia climate cabal trying to silence the debate.

Quote:

the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, controls all the C-SPAN cameras in the House of Representatives, and all feeds have to go through those cameras to the outside world. So while the GOP is fighting a historic battle on Capital Hill to get gas prices lowered, no one can see it live because Pelosi controls the video. Nice move there, Pelosi. Is your ultimate plan to control the rest of the country like this, too?

Source

The opposition stepped forward to voice their views. Pelosi turned off the cameras. I wouldn't be surprised if Wild Bill Connelley was waiting outside to give Nanc a high five.