Good find.

Unfortunately it’s not only wikiP it’s the whole nett.

I have trawled the nett as an experiment and assessed the material found and tried to imagine how the man in the street would view reliability.

I became very depressed.

It is so convincing.

Report this

00

I’m not sure if this is the best place to get a message to you but I have just come across something that I think needs some follow up and I couldn’t think of any other way of drawing attention to it.

Over the weekend there was a story on the Cartaret Islands on the SBS Thalassa programme. The item was the usual discussion of how the west needs to save the islanders from the evils of global warming etc. This show wasn’t the thing that disturbed me, that came later when I was amusing myself and doing a little research on the islands and ended up at Wikipedia. I was most disturbed to read the Cartaret Island entry, it appears to have been completely, and somewhat crudely rewritten to virtually eliminate any discussion of the islands sinking and attempting to attribute all the problems to rising sea levels alone. I’m fairly certain there used to be a reasonable article in Wikipedia before. The current article has some very poor statements with no attribution at all.
It really needs someone with the appropriate skills to edit it. Although I am a geologist this is out of my field of expertise.

Cheers

———-

Grahame: Best to pick an active thread so your comment email will go out to many… Look for William Connolly in the edits of the page. Jo

Report this

10

Report this

20

If you want to use the text on my homepage, and the article on methane. Every text on my website is related to the others, but the methane text I am suggesting for few reasons: 1] I believe, you have background in medicine. 2] on your website occasionally methane is misrepresented. 3] in New Zealand they already passed the legislation on methane tax. If my text is on your, well read website – methane tax will be dropped in NZ like hot potato. 4] Because is promoted as 21 times more potent greenhouse gas, by misleading = Julia will never sell one dollar ‘’carbon credit’’ 5] before published my book, I have coined the ‘’permission to fart tax’’ now just got in my email that Moreno in the states is talking about it – here in Australia + NZ, discussion is avoided… 6] lots of millions are squandered in research; to badmouth methane. the real truth is completely opposite.

My proofs are real, that nobody can disprove, it’s ALL proven now. When is proven that the truth is completely opposite – then the Skeptics will be on the front foot. Eminent Warmist that are not benefiting yet from the misleading, will instantly jump ship = that will make the debate much more interesting. People will start talking about bringing the leading Warmist to court of justice, not just looking how to ridicule them. Nobody can find any mistake in what I have – they resort in pointing that English is not my first language. You polish the text in perfect English = the pretend Skeptics will have to face the proofs I have. Please Joanne, you own it to the nation: http://globalwarmingdenier.wordpress.com homepage, then page on methane; please, please Joanne. If you read it, you will see the importance and urgency.

Report this

00

Can yout give me information about the financial sources Greenpeace (an other global players) are using or can you give me advice, where I can get those information from!
It would be interesting for me if thoese people receive money from big companies or government institutions in the US, Europa, Australia/New Zealand or elsewhere.

Best wishes Ulrich

—-REPLY: I wish I could. I don’t think those groups give out that information. I trawled annual reports and google searched to get the numbers I got. I noticed for example that the Sierra Club had $1m donors who remained anonymous. I also noticed that Greenpeace were giving out less and less info in recent reports. Good luck. Let me know what you find.

Report this

00

Hope you are well. In any case, you are doing the fantastic job and I admire you.

“val majkus” asked me to allow you to sent him my e-mail address. I do not see any problems, unless you have some suspicions or reservations. One would think he could communicate through Fog of Chaos.

You probably do not have the time to check F/Chaos, but I would very much like to draw your attention to the following items, in English, all by Antishenes-

Advertisement indicator / 04-10
Travails of Bolt / 29-09
Taxpayers of no consequence / 19-09
Julia forever! / 09-09
Quo usque tandem abutere Julia patientia nostra? / 31-08

Well, we are doing all we can in our amateurish ways. Any suggestion more than welcome.

With best wishes,

p a u l / friday morning

Report this

00

My names is Vanese Mc Neill.
I am in the preliminary stages of working on a proposal for a documentary series for SBS / ABC and in my research I kept ending up on your pages. Finally I stopped to see who you were and it occurred to me that you might be my dream come true. You have done all the research, you are attractive and eloquent. You seem to be passionate about the same issues that I am.

SO i have to at least ask….would you have the time or the inclination to investigate the possibility of playing on at least a proposal for a series, or stand alone doco?

Would love to chat with you if there is

Regardless…your work is amazing, and do not stop at any cost!

With much respect

Vanese

Report this

00

In making his ruling Justice Barker referred to a decision in the Federal Court in Spencer v. Commonwealth in which the lower court ruled that Peter had no arguable case. This is remarkable because it ignores the fact that the High Court later overturned this ruling. There are several other points in Justice Barker’s ruling in which we believe Justice Barker ignored important evidence in making his decision.

Report this

00