Any sceptic who has ever tried to edit a wikipedia article will know that the climate articles are just a propaganda rag for green-spin. Many of us suspect that many of the editors are either the prominent team members themselves or post-grads in their employ.
This was obvious when there was open discussion, not about papers that were published, not even about ones being reviewed (which itself shows inside knowledge), but ones that were still in the process of being written … even “it’s time (we) had a paper on”. It was just their way of boasting to us sceptics that there was nothing we could do to stop them. They had total control over the content, and even if we could find some way to justify a change …. they would just get their buddies to write a new paper refuting it. I will repeat that: there was a strong suggestion that papers were written merely to serve as “evidence” to force article changes in wikipedia.
Later, when I went back to university and started writing lectures I began to see wikipedia from another perspective. “Whatever you do, don’t base your essay on wikipedia”, said the lecturer. Indeed, there are some lecturers who mark down people for even one reference to wikipedia. And it is very obvious in some areas, particularly “celtic” articles, that almost any kind of nonsense can and will get into some areas of wikipedia. So, climate is not alone in this bias, but it is fairly unique in the way the academics themselves encourage the bias.
Then, today it dawned on me that wikipedia was not so much a commentary on this climate “science” but the philosophy of wikipedia and this climate joke subject are one and the same.
Wikipedia isn’t fact. It is cherry picked “facts” to fit the views of the majority who bother to edit it. Worse, it is an anonymous “consensus”. No one has to stand up to vouch for the opinions expressed. No one is accountable if utter rubbish is included in the articles. No one will loose their job as they would in a traditional encyclopaedia. It is cost free opinion pushing. It is almost certain many climate “scientists” have used wikipedia to express views in public behind the cloak of anonymity which they would not dare to express if we knew who they were and could get them sacked for their actions.
Wikipedia has been rife with behind the scenes groups conspiring to write the article they want, not the article the evidence supports. As an example, there was the regular occurrence of the “tag team”. A sceptic (or a warmist who was not a zealot) would make a change. Then an obnoxious warmist would just revert it. Note, I mean they intentionally behaved obnoxiously, provoking a reaction; anyone who responded in kind was immediately banned. If however, they kept their cool and reintroduced their change with a few chosen words to express their contempt, along would come “another” warmist who would do the same again. I say “another” because it wasn’t clear they were different people, just different sign-ons. Usually this did the trick and the sceptic got angry enough to forget that …. they couldn’t just put their change back again, because this was grounds for an immediate ban so that “another” warmist editor would appear to ban the sceptic. Even if they remembered and reframed from the change … what could they do? It was three sign-ons to one and you can’t win against odds like that … even if everything else were fair.
I say sceptic, often these weren’t sceptics as we know them today, they were just people who thought the article needed a small change. Many were actually pro-warming. But the tag-team ensured that no one except the in-crowd of the tag team ever got substantial changes through.
Notice how corrupt this was. Even moderate pro-warming people were excluded if they did not toe the line. Much of it was done in “office” hours, probably at public expense. It used hidden communication, using the processes which were supposed to ensure impartiality and good behaviour to remove anyone who was not part of the in-crowd. And it all seemed to have the passive support of the “elite” of wikipedia.
Doesn’t it reek of the corruption of climate “science”. It is a consensus of the “in-crowd” the abuse of peer review to prevent alternative work being published. Indeed, it is the wholesale manufacture of paper and data intended to support a political view. Not the impartial analysis of the evidence and not the open and honest discussion of the evidence. And as for the corrupt support of the “elite” of “science”. Criminal … literally criminal.
So I wonder whether this corruption isn’t so much that wikipedia reflected the corruption of science by the climate “team”, but perhaps the team’s whole ethos is very much a reflection of the ethos and standards of a wikipedia generation.
Did climate science corrupt wikipedia, or did wikipedia corrupt climate “science”?
Are we dealing with something new … a new kind of subject where individuals are not accountable to evidence, instead they just manufacture “proof” to score their point. That peer review is not a means of critique, but a process whose main function is to exclude those who disagree. Has this wikipedia generation created a monster?
Just as academics cannot trust anything in wikipedia as a whole, so should scientists now realise that as far as this trojan horse subject in their midst: “nothing should be believed in: wiki-science”?