Posted on 03/08/2020 2:33:07 PM PDT by RightGeek
Wikipedia has deleted its ‘List of Scientists Who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming’.
Stalin — who set the template for airbrushing inconvenient people out of history — would no doubt have heartily approved of this wanton act of censorship.
But what would probably have pleased him more is the magnificently twisted justification offered by the editor responsible.
“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.”
What this Wikipedia editor is saying, in other words, is that if you’re a scientist who doesn’t believe in global warming then that automatically makes you not a scientist.
In fact many tens of thousands of scientists are sceptical of catastrophic man-made global warming theory, including some of the most eminent experts in the field, among them physicists Dr Richard Lindzen of MIT and Dr Will Happer of Princeton.
But the kind of intolerant leftists who tend to edit Wikipedia pages don’t want you to know this.
(Excerpt) Read more at breitbart.com ...
Stalin would be proud.
JUST D_MN
Nice long list here:
Michael Crichton on “science” and “consensus”:
“I want to pause here and talk about this notion of consensus, and the rise of what has been called consensus science. I regard consensus science as an extremely pernicious development that ought to be stopped cold in its tracks. Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of scoundrels; it is a way to avoid debate by claiming that the matter is already settled. Whenever you hear the consensus of scientists agrees on something or other, reach for your wallet, because you’re being had.
“Let’s be clear: the work of science has nothing whatever to do with consensus. Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world. In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus.
“There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”
Next time someone tells you that “all scientists believe in global warming” say “of course they do. by definition”
"Everyone knows it's true."
The Nobel assembly said the pair had used "tenacity" to challenge prevailing theories about stomach disease, making an "irrefutable case" that this bacterium caused more than 90% of duodenal ulcers and up to 80% of gastric ulcers. The discovery also challenged the prevailing treatments for ulcers. The committee said their pioneering discovery meant stomach ulcers were no longer a chronic, disabling condition, but a disease that could be cured.
How I miss this man.
Tells me the editor
A. is a marxist
B. knows nothing about science
One does not "vote" to determine scientific truth.
http://www.goodreads.com/quotes/65213-briefly-stated-the-gell-mann-amnesia-effect-is-as-follows-you
“Briefly stated, the Gell-Mann Amnesia effect is as follows. You open the newspaper to an article on some subject you know well. In Murray's case, physics. In mine, show business. You read the article and see the journalist has absolutely no understanding of either the facts or the issues. Often, the article is so wrong it actually presents the story backward—reversing cause and effect. I call these the "wet streets cause rain" stories. Paper's full of them.
In any case, you read with exasperation or amusement the multiple errors in a story, and then turn the page to national or international affairs, and read as if the rest of the newspaper was somehow more accurate about Palestine than the baloney you just read. You turn the page, and forget what you know.”
― Michael Crichton
Wow, thanks for posting this. I’ve had ulcers since I was a teen, off and on. I had a particularly painful one and my doc said I tested positive for H pylori and I took some killer antibiotics. But I know my problems are partially from stress, etc., so it didn’t make sense. Still doesn’t.
Wikipedia has become politicized to an extreme. I still use it for STEM and other similar research and fact checking but anything remotely political is completely fiction. What a shame!
In my college courses, Wikipedia was disallowed from being used as a source due to bias.
____________________
Wow. Where did you go .... Hillsdale? .... Slippery Rock?
https://web.archive.org/web/20191023113412/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming
and
https://archive.is/3wUyQ#selection-484.0-10741.7 provide records of what WP expunged:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lk7kp0Accz0&feature=youtu.be
Mob science.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.