- JoNova - http://joannenova.com.au -

Wikipedia deletes The List of Scientists who are Skeptics of the sacred (fake) “Consensus”

Posted By Jo Nova On March 8, 2020 @ 12:48 am In Free Speech,Global Warming | Comments Disabled

The evidence is overwhelming but the names of 85 unconvinced experts threatens the Earth. Shield your eyes, sinner, lest ye faith be tested!

Wikipedia Deletion Log

The Religion of  Carbonoid-Weather-Control is so fragile, and Wikipedia so captured by philosophical fruit flies, that 35 editors voted down 19 other editors and now The List does not exist. Thus do 35 editors keep safe the minds of Wikipedia babes who might get confused when they see Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencers names and mistake them for actual climate scientists… oh.

Thanks to Dr Roger Higgs:

Electroverse: Wikipedia deletes scientists who disagree…

Here’s the reasoning for the censorship given by one of the Wiki editors:

“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”

Wikipedia

I’d like to thank those 35 Wiki editors for telling the world how weak the consensus is and giving skeptics another excuse to highlight this dangerous list. Go Streisand Effect.

Cap Allon at Electroverse captured the Wikipedia list. So have Fandom. KEEP!KEEP!KEEP! Those listed are not noteworthy? “Any utility it ever had is long past?” It’s a list of cranks? Absolute rubbish. There are 4 explicit criteria for inclusion. 1) the individual must have published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) he or she must have made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report’s three main conclusions, and 3) the scientists has to have been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, to ensure notability, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included. Someone advocating for deletion, if the article is a mishmash of miscreants . . . I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY!

Dr Roger Higgs notes:

By the way, note three BBC-style disingenuous omissions in the title alone: “List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming”:

(1) these are not just any scientists, but well-known and, in many cases, distinguished scientists (Happer, Soon, Lindzen, etc, etc; see below), in diverse fields of science;

(2) they disagree with the consensus on man-made global warming (no educated person denies global warming; Earth has always alternately warmed and cooled);

(3) the consensus is only among climate scientists (whose salaries, research grants, and reputations depend on public belief in man-made warming).

Time to share far and wide. If Wikipedia is serious they have to kick out the editors with political or religious bias.

Dr Roger Higgs, by the way has published: 29 bullet points prove global warming by the sun, not CO2: by a GEOLOGIST for a change

h/t Viv Forbes CarbonSense, Bill and George

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES

— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

DECEASED SCIENTISTS

— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (107 votes cast)

Article printed from JoNova: http://joannenova.com.au

URL to article: http://joannenova.com.au/2020/03/wikipedia-deletes-the-list-of-scientists-who-are-skeptics-of-the-sacred-consensus/

Copyright © 2008 JoNova. All rights reserved.