A number of entries in Wikipedia appear to display an absence of the above principles when it comes to reporting about climate change, with little criticism of the catastrophic anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) narrative. Thus, we have excellent examples of why this online source should be closely examined for possible bias when providing information about climate change and influencing factors.
William Connolley was noted for promoting Wikipedia’s climate alarmist views whilst suppressing any rational, skeptical information that he didn’t like. Lawrence Solomon noted how:
“He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph.”
Woke Inc. author Vivek Ramaswamy said that the left’s climate religion “has about as much to do with the climate as the Spanish inquisition had to with Christ which is to say nothing at all.”
The Strive Asset Management Executive Chairman blasted climate extremists for their hypocritical “religious” agenda that has nothing to do with their supposed care for the planet and everything to do with the push for woke global equity.
“Here’s the dirty little secret about the climate religion: It has nothing to do with the climate and everything to do with making the West, and America in particular, apologize for its success, which it views as a sin,” Ramaswamy said on the Feb. 10 edition of Tucker Carlson Tonight.
Jim Chalmers is proving to be the most iconoclastic Treasurer since the Whitlam government’s Jim Cairns, a man who only joined the Labor Party after his application to join the Communist Party was rejected. Cairns spearheaded a previous assault on conventional capitalist economic theory and, like Chalmers, sought to borrow, spend, and regulate the nation into prosperity with fairness. Both Chalmers and Cairns came into politics with doctorates in economic history – that of Chalmers was a hagiography of Paul Keating, whose policies he now wants to reverse.
Wat: “You have been weighed.”
Roland: “You have been measured.”
Kate: “And you have absolutely…”
Chaucer: “Been found wanting.”
– A Knight’s Tale, Geoffrey Chaucer (1340’s – 1400)
A knighthood is a title given to a man by a British king or queen for his achievements or service to his country. Founded by King Edward the Third in 1348, the knighthood is regarded as the highest British civil and military honour obtainable and one would expect recipients to be persons of honesty and integrity.
There are at least 4 English knights who appear to have strayed from the path of honesty and integrity when it comes to relating information about climate change to politicians, the media, business and the general public.
The first Knight’s Tale is about Sir David King, former Professor of physical chemistry at Liverpool University, Fellow of the Royal Society, Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. He was knighted in 2003 and made the UK’s Chief Scientific Advisor (2000 – 2007).
In 2008 King became the Director of Oxford University’s Smith School of Enterprise and the Environment established by generous funding from the Martin Smith Foundation of which the Vice-Chancellor of the university, Dr. John Hood, said:
This is a follow-up book by Dr. John Happs. It further exposes the questionable behaviour of the political/ideological Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), its United Nations supporters and those who stand to benefit from the continued promotion of climate alarmism.
The book looks closely at the way in which respected organisations, such as NASA, and celebrities such as Sir David Attenborough have pedalled climate pseudoscience and alarmism to their many followers. We now know that many of our school teachers are shamelessly promoting climate fear in the minds of trusting children.
Most criticism is levelled at those Green zealots who have worked assiduously to prevent the widespread use of DDT and Golden Rice at the cost of millions of lives in developing countries. In Australia Green activists have opposed prescribed burning in our forests, leading to the accumulation of understorey fuel, catastrophic bushfires and the loss of property and lives. At the same time, they foolishly blame anthropogenic global warming for bushfires, floods and drought.
Australian supporters of the saltbushclub.com website can obtain copies of Climate Change: How Politics and Self-Interests Have Debased Science, directly from the author, for the special price of twenty-five dollars ($25). This includes postage within Australia.
This is a huge and a very complex subject. The literature surrounding climate change is enormous, diffuse and profoundly contradictory. The reason; climate scientists have not exactly been lily white in their recording and reporting of information. A considerable amount of data has been distorted or altered to give them the results they desire.
My approach to this subject is factual and as accurate as my research has allowed in several years of study. The last forty years have seen massive multinational scientific studies costing millions of dollars. The scientific backing for the Global Warming scare comes from climate science, not politicians. Climate science is a weak science. The atmosphere is chaotic and difficult to define with scientific theories. Many of these studies attempt to predict the future of the climate and to quantify the effects of change on the world’s populations. The effects of Carbon Dioxide are speculative and influenced by ideological biases of the various scientists. This then produces strong elements attempting to enforce uniformity of opinion. The climate scientific community now say there is ‘consensus’ among scientists supporting anthropological climate change. This is a nonsense. In science there is no such thing. Either the scientific evidence proves the hypothesis or it doesn’t. The opinion of the scientists is irrelevant without factual and repeatable evidence.