Wikipedia Filters Climate Change IssuesAdded: Thursday, November 8th, 2012
Category: Recent Headlines Involving File Sharing > Current Events
Tags:ET, p2p, Torrent, Piracy, Peer To Peer, Network, Hackers, Internet, BitTorrent, Google, utorrent, bitcomet, extratorrent, 2010, www.extratorrent.com
While the world’s press is lively discussing the idea that the weather disasters in the United States might be caused by climate change, Wikipedia has no mention of that suggestion.
Local media suggests that this is because the brains behind that Wikipedia page – Ken Mampel, an unemployed, 56-year-old Floridian, – appeared to be a climate change denier who is using Wikipedia page to push his own agenda. He created a winner on the page: his Wikipedia article was the most-viewed one about Hurricane Sandy, and he established himself as the most active contributor to it. According to the statistics, he made twice the number of edits than any other contributor.
The strange thing is that Ken Mampel made sure that the article about Hurricane Sandy, for 4 days after it made landfall in New Jersey, never mentioned “global warming” or “climate change”. Finally, on the 1st of November, a new section was added to the bottom of the page, titled “Connection to global warming”. However, it was instantly deleted by Mampel – the contributor insisted that it be sent to the global warming page.
Since then, Ken Mampel has continued to fight any discussions on global warming, making it clear that he didn’t believe in climate change. As such, he has had to bend a lot of the reports to make sure that climate change isn’t mentioned.
For instance, he pointed out that New York City’s Mayor Michael Bloomberg had endorsed Obama for president based on his handling of the disaster, but failed to mention that the mayor had specifically been talking about climate change in his speech.
In the meantime, there are lots of science-focused comments about Hurricane Sandy that are linked to climate change, but Ken Mampel doesn’t allow to add them to the Wikipedia entry. Even if someone pointed to a reference, Mampel still took it out because he believed it was not proven.
The experts have always claimed that the hijacking of Wikipedia by people with political views or those wishing to push an agenda has always been the main drawback of the world’s online encyclopedia. In our case it’s far from politics, but still just one editor having oddball ideas and trying to keep data which he doesn’t like away from the public.
November 8th,2012Posted by:
Thursday, November 8th, 2012
|posted by (2012-11-08 20:59:35)|
|I thought and have read that climate change ideas are indeed a bunch of crap and i say bravo to|
ken . .
|posted by (2012-11-08 21:13:34)|
|You may have thought or read both of those things, but it's pretty well established science that climate changing is being affected by human activity. Even if you believe it's more disputed than, say, 99% of the Earth's scientists do, and that it's just a bunch of baloney, this guy is removing any mention of obviously relevant material, such as the endorsement by the President by Bloomberg was specifically regarding climate change. That isn't a constructive dialogue, this is blind faith driving censorship.|
|Dont believe in climate change myself . just another way to add another tax . scientists are government paid to fix the bullshit stats .yep i say bravo to ken for not drinking the kool aid .it used to be called global warming but then the scam artists realised it wasn't getting any warmer so called it climate change . well said rockman|
|posted by (2012-11-08 21:55:26)|
|3 ) Seeyouentee bingo you got that right some counties think if they tax advanced countries; what ever that means to death that will solve the problem it won t. Didn t pop science and time magazine have huge stories exposing over the fact that goverments around the world think its best to drag the greatest country in the world America down to their 3rd world level; pay those scientists to lie . . .|
|posted by (2012-11-08 21:58:39)|
|I cant believe anyone takes any notice to wikipedia,i made edits on there befor saying that William Wallace inveted Marmite and had a phobia of the ps3.|
|posted by (2012-11-08 22:15:22)|
|2 ) Wenex - I so agree "That isn't a constructive dialogue, this is blind faith driving censorship." - yes blind faith isn t constructive dialogue, in scientists that are payed to lie by their countries that own them and it shouldn t bother anyone that fact . . thats a bunch of crap to never disagree . . .|
|In this planets life it`s gone from covered in molten lava to completely covered in 3 mile thick ice many times, it`s what it does! I know we have affected the timeframe of this planets natural evolution but probably the equivalent of pulling 1 hair out of someones head, then getting blamed if he goes bald. It`s just another excuse for scumbags to get paid footballer wages to study F#CKALL|
|posted by (2012-11-09 00:28:02)|
|Silly little fools..While climate change is a reality, we have no data to suggest a connection to weather anomalies like Sandy. The current research suggests it may be an eventual consequence of warming trends, in 2 or 3 decades at the absolute earliest. The information we have of precise temperature measurements limits us to a century of records. Most is pulled from geological records like permafrost or glacial coring, and is not precise to the year you simple morons. The media loves the colour green for more than a love of the Earth. It is the same colour as cash.|
|As a scientist myself, I assure you that climate change is very real. There's tons of research backing this also, except most people don't even know how to search for journals.|
|Even the IPCC states that there is no link to Climate Change for any extreme weather event.|
|posted by (2012-11-09 04:51:41)|
|I don't care if people believe in it or not, but isn't it kind of going against the wiki mindset to filter any data in that?|
My personal stance on Global Warming is it's a natural thing that happens if you go back in the history of the Earth (atleast from my research a few years back that I did). I believe us humans could be helping along the natural process with our destroying the ozone, pollution and what not. But that's just my opinion on the fact.
That being said, I enjoy reading everyone's opinion on the matter, so keep them coming!
|agree with 11 lol although the military here is some what adamant on this and things progressive activity is the answer , as far as wiki editing its silly but who really cares those who believe will those who dont dont wiki saying so or not will not sway my opinion|
|Looks like the article was written by a kid..Climate change denier.useless term..the meme used to be "gobal warming" then that failed..then they chose"climate change"..because its means nothing..but bozo green supporters love slogans..and repeat it..learn to think and read for god sake..and the comparison to holocaust denial is not even pathetic..didnt notice the poster wingeing here when the the majority of sceptical/rational scientists not tied to funding for "climate change" cannot get anything in wikipedia..but its different if one guy supposedly censors a page..Fail..again..the "majority of scientists is another logical fallacy its science not sport or politics...number dont count..and the hilarious paradox.."weenex" says this "That isn't a constructive dialogue, this is blind faith driving censorship."..yet he ?would know nothing about climate issues and wants a page censored because he thinks its wrong..yup..that makes sense...fail..|
|posted by (2012-11-09 07:46:16)|
|No. In the arc of hope, a measure is taken from uneffected places, in hope that the planet will resume it's normal weather pattern. If a kid wrote it, even from climate effect places, it offers hope to areas worse effected areas. Weather goes around and news of any level gradiant in the pattern is appreciated and taken as a Science. Our weather is cold, so expect a return reposnse on the other side of the planet, expecting future patterns.|
One sensiable question the otherside might ask is "Was it Summer" ? "Yes, it is". But we have a little island somewhere, still in normal condition, reflected and writing like this Wikipedia article. Hope found worldwide here. And you thuoght Hacker's suppression ?
|The wikipedia is full of people who push their own personal agendas. It also full of people pushing their own egos.|
|posted by (2012-11-09 12:21:38)|
|Climate change may or may not have merit, but humans are not the cause, although most unbiased data shows no significant change. It is most likely a cyclical event or something the Lord has set in motion.|
|posted by (2012-11-09 12:53:49)|
|#2 u you right .i think for myself this got something to do with the stuff they spray in the sky all day everyday "chem trails" they spray it to keep the sun away so some countries have bad harvest sick people and whatever, do what we tell u to do or we attack with something u don't understand|
|posted by (2012-11-09 20:52:44)|
|Some people are so thick !!!|
You think if you decimate the worlds forests (they change carbon dioxide to oxygen) and have billions of cars (not even mentioning industrial poison) roaming the world churning out billions and billions of tons of carbon dioxide somethings not gonna happen ??
The scientists do not help their cause when they keep preaching end of world scenarios at the drop of a hat.
anyone remember the hole in the ozone layer ?
@ rockman I see your preaching trash again. Everything is fake if he doesn't like it. It has been photoshoped or something is his reply to being shown the truth.
One question I would like answered is if your pumping billions of barrels of oil out of the ground WHEN will it collapse ?
How many Russian and American nuclear submarines are rotting on the ocean floor ?
What happens when one goes BANG
|posted by (2012-11-09 23:25:11)|
|Climate change "Scientists" threatened to boycott major scientific journals that published dissenting opinions on climate change, google climategate. Global warming supporters proved the earth got .5 degrees warmer in the last 100 years, that is called a statistical anomaly. Fourty years ago "climatologists" predicted another ice age, opps! 20 years ago they warned the ozone layer was collapsing, the hole is now shrinking, opps again! These idiots are glorified whether men, they can't get the weather right for a week from Tuesday but we listen to them for what will happen in a thousand years.|
|posted by (2012-11-09 23:35:35)|
|Crakis: The earth has a self regulating eco-system. As more CO2 is produced plants grow faster consuming the CO2 making O2. 2/3rds of all plants exist in the ocean. What the heck do rotting subs on the ocean floor have to do with global warming? The hole in the ozone layer fixed itself, as the hole grew bigger more radiation entered the upper atmosphere, this radiation hits O2 turning it into O3. O3 is ozone. The earth has a self regulating eco-system, if it did not we would have an atmosphere like venus. Don't panic, LEARN!|
|posted by (2012-11-10 01:16:30)|
|@ozestrange: if you're going to argue against me, get my argument right, or at least get any of the general facts straight: this isn't about any climate change persons censoring stuff, and we're talking about a guy who's censoring even mentions of global warming, which whether you "believe" it or not, it a relevant issue. (belief... like this is some religious issue for the love of...) By the way, using a more apt term to describe global changes instead of simply "global warming" is the weakest argument I've ever heard to dismiss a mountain of scientific evidence.|
And yeah, google climategate, and then google "vindicated", meaning, the emails that started that whole controversy turned out to have absolutely zero to do with the final results. And then look and see how much coverage Fox News gave THAT.
Oh, and lol66: you're absolutely right. In fact, scientists have been wrong about all kinds of things, and therefore, nothing scientists ever say or do is right, and never ever will again. You nailed it.
"Believe" what you want. This idea that the entire freaking planet's scientists are going to take pay-off's from their respective governments for some mysterious reason aimed at "bringing down" America is just absolutely insane.
The only reason this is an issue at all, is because it costs companies money to not freely pollute the air, the water, the planet in general, in whatever way they want. It bothers them to have to spend a dime on cleaning up the toxic ash they spew into the atmosphere, land, water tables and oceans.. and so they made it a religious issue. It just depends what you "believe", that all these "ivory tower elites" are just trying to "control" us with a world-wide conspiracy that doesn't really benefit anyone. It defies rationality.
|Whether one believes in adverse climate change as a result of humanity (read: terraforming) or not, how does one applaud censorship of salient facts and information in a supposedly fact-based, non-partisan, information-only forum (Wikipedia)?|
That to me is ignorant at best, and neither intelligent nor discerning in any way. Shutting one's eyes does not make things go away, just out of one's view/vision.
In other words, just because you don't believe (in) something does not mean that it is not true.
If you truly believe that the environment (climate/weather systems included) is in no way adversely affected by humanity, then you truly are living in your own little box, with horse-blinders on, overtop of falcon-blinders and with earplugs buried deep within your ears.
We carve out large swaths of foliage to be replaced with concrete, ashphalt, steel and other such structures, pollute our atmosphere with massive amounts of toxic substances, and space-refuse, and pollute our water tables with the same (sans space-refuse unless it becomes buried or submerged).
We are arrogant enough to believe that we can terraform our planet without consequence. Arrogant in the belief that the Earth's cycles have always swung in such variances, and this is no different, which is ridiculous at best, and quite frankly, not very bright at all.
No one is arguing that these cycles exist, and of course we are in the midst of such a cycle. We always are. What climatologists and climate-change proponents are saying is that we are hastening the time-frame of such a cycle to alarming rates, which as already begun to affect life as we have known it since we have recorded history as a species.
In evolutionary terms, these cycles happened not over a few hundred years but over millenia and indeed millions of years, so the changes are not quick in terms of human perception, and in reality, our species would not exist or would be nowhere near what we are at this point in our evolution/in time, by the time this cycle ended or transitioned into the next (cycle).
In other words, if such cycles recurred regularly and regardless or outside of human influences (as climate-change denyers believe), when this cycle ends and the next one begins, we will not exist such as we are today, and perhaps not even at all if evolution has a say in anything (and we know that it does).
However, what we as a species are doing right now is hastening these changes to occur at a greatly accelerated rate, to the point where these changes and their effects are noticeable to and in our daily lives.
To make a more personal analogy, it would be like a person replacing parts of their major organs (heart, liver, lungs) via surgery and replacing what was taken with inanimate material that has no organic or anatomical function such as plastic or silicone (read: tearing down forests and foliage and replace withpavement and buildings and such). Also continually drinking and intaking toxin-laced substances as food or nourishment.
After a while, the lungs will no longer function properly, nor the heart beat correctly, and so on.
So it is on a global scale with the environment.
Please open your minds to greater things than our own selves and ego-centric ideologies.
|Just to clarify, scientists around the world are not being "paid" by their employers or their respective governments to "lie" and speak untruths. If anything, the reverse is true and occurring on a daily basis.|
Governments around the world are attempting to stifle scientists and the various results of their work(s), and that includes first world countries such as Canada and the United States.
Scientists are paid to perform what they do best: study and apply scientific analysis, theory and method to all aspects of Life. Many are highly respected professionals in their fields, as well as being intelligent with facts-based reasoning as one of their central ideologies.
To discount what various scientists around the world with no ties or relations save that of the science say regarding humanity's impact on systemic weather shifts would be ignorant at best, and would not benefit our species in the least.
|posted by (2012-11-10 03:17:05)|
|Some of you are seriously misinformed about the science here, particularly #17 with the "chemtrails." Regardless of whether or not climate change is occurring by anyone's differing standards, the issue at hand is that one lone crackpot has saw fit to withhold information on a "public encyclopedia" because he doesn't agree with it. The right thing to do is add as much information as possible, from all sides of the argument. If you believe climate change, or any topic on any article is fake, fine, say that, but provide references and such to back up your claim and do not simply pretend other information doesn't exist simply because you don't agree with it. Let the readers form their own opinion.|
|posted by (2012-11-10 18:29:50)|
|Nicely said OpenMinder.. Oh, and @Jibbajabba, regarding this beauty: "Even the IPCC states that there is no link to Climate Change for any extreme weather event."|
Not so, what they actually express is that they can't say with certainty that, for example, Sandy happened because of climate change or wouldn't have happened if there was no global warming. But what they can and have said is exactly this:
"“A changing climate leads to changes in the frequency, intensity, spatial extent, duration and timing of extreme weather and climate events, and can result in unprecedented extreme weather and climate events,”"
I would say that more information is not always better. I'd rather have a comprehensive but manageable amount of expert analysis and facts than a mountain of nonsense, which is what tends to happen now. You get so much noise out there that people throw their hands up in the air and say "Well, that guy sounds like he really knows what he's talking about, he's certainly speaking with a lot of conviction, and he speaks for my team and is really making me made, so I'm just going to go ahead and believe what he says, and summarily dismiss anything to the contrary as <insert conspiracy here>."
|posted by (2012-11-10 19:54:56)|
|@lol66 the submarine question was just that. It wasn't linked to global warming.|
As for the increase growth of plant life WHERE ?
Plant life has great difficulty growing through concrete or asphalt.
As for plant life in the ocean, nothing would be able to swim in the ocean if the amount lost on land was replaced underwater.
ps as for 7/10ths of the world being oceans most is too deep for any plant life, and coral is on the decline.
You my say there isn't any change but I go by my own memory where every year I was a youngster It snowed here. not just a slight layer and gone in days, this was inches thick and lasted weeks. We've only had snow like that two or three times in the last two decades.
We may or may not be responsible for it but somethings happening and we're not helping.
Oil will not last too long but just ponder this if the power stations that now use oil have to use something else ie coal then theres gonna be even more pollution, if the developing nations like India, China and brasil hack down their forrests and clean other plant life so they grow like the usa,england, europe what then. the ratio of plant to car becomes more one sided. eventually we will poison the atmosphere.
This statement is not funded by any company or government it's COMMON SENSE.
Bury your head in the sand, blame everyone else! But in the end it all comes down to us.
We can have the party now, but it will be our children or more likely our grand children who will have to pay for what we do
|posted by (2012-11-11 01:29:21)|
The point I meant in regards to "more information" was not "add a hundred pages of everyone's different opinions and sort through the crap yourself." Rather present the most commonly held assumptions and have clear links/references to the sources of the original information - i.e. scientific studies, articles, whatever (as long as it's not just some retard's personal blog).
|posted by (2012-11-11 04:09:10)|
|Krackus; Aquatic plant life like algae grows near the surface of the water, that's why the water is green, so all 70% contributes to the breakdown of CO2, and the manufacture of O2. Your memory of past winters is meaningless, these things happen on a geologic timeline, in order to understand the patterns need to look back millions of years. The earths climate is changing, always has been. There have been 5 major ice ages and warmings so far, there will be more. The temperature on venus rose 5 degrees last year, did we cause that too??|
|posted by (2012-11-12 00:29:54)|
|I like how so many people are offended that someone is editing climate change out of an article. Kind of funny that when climate change is injected into an article these same people think it's ok. Well I guess you know how the people feel that haven't been completely sold on the idea of climate change. There was once a consensus that the sun and the other planets rotated around the earth. Don't forget the consensus that the world was flat. So don't be surprised if someone disagrees that it is a proven fact because something as complicated as global warming would have to take an infinite number of variables into account in order to arrive at a conclusion that is undeniable. As pointed out, the earth has went through many ice ages and warming periods throughout its history. Look back at the past 100 years and you will see extreme weather has taken place in the form of tornadoes, floods, droughts, hurricanes, snowstorms, cold snaps, wildfires, etc...maybe it seems more extreme do to technology. We not only knew about the tsunami in Japan as soon as it happened, we saw actual footage of its devastation live. 100 years ago you only knew the weather that you could see with your own eyes. Now you can get weather information almost anywhere in the world at any given time. The media makes money by sensationalizing it. Researchers are more likely to make conclusions that continues to fund them than to end the funding. How many people do you know that would make the argument that their job isn't needed and that their position should be eliminated? So don't tell me all these scientists aren't either consciously or subconsciously more likely to conclude that climate change is real and their findings point to it.|
|posted by (2012-11-12 00:57:53)|
|29 ) Unsub- so you agree that scientists will lie invent any story to keep themselfs funded and they will keep the real story buryed that climate change; what ever that is isn t caused my man amazing how calm and cool you are over their lies . .|
|posted by (2012-11-12 01:09:27)|
|23 ) Openminder -|
" Just to clarify, scientists around the world are not being "paid" by their employers or their respective governments to "lie" and speak untruths. If anything, the reverse is true and occurring on a daily basis. "
No no no scientists are being paid everyday to lie; invent stories cover up the facts that climate change is not caused by humans. Time mag and Pop science have had huge stories on these myths over the yrs .
The scientists are fed hand to mouth by various goverments around the world that see a huge need to get the advanced countries of the world changed into third world countries so we can feel their pains and other new age crap like that . .
|@Rockman: While I certainly agree that there are those within the scientific community who are party to what you claim, however, as with all things there are always the few exceptions to the rule as they say.|
I totally disagree with such a grande overgeneralization, and I ask that you provide factual evidentiary material to support your assertion of a subversive globally-linked conspiracy run by rogue, networked scientists paid by governments to provide the populace false information.
How is that thinking rationally?
@Unsub: Interesting point, about scientists having their findings support their beliefs. That's what science is all about, is it not? Postulate a theory or hypothesis, then go about either proving or disproving...this is the scientific method.
Isn't that something of a metaphor for how we live our lives in general, really?
|posted by (2012-11-12 04:02:47)|
|32 ) OpenMinder -|
" Isn't that something of a metaphor for how we live our lives in general, really? "
What kind of a crap statement is this makes no sense and as for getting back issues of magazines that i can have you choke on not sure how to do that hum . . .
|Climate change is a natural process that mother earth does when she feels like it. Let's remember that the earth moved after the tsunami that hit japan, that can create a massive climate shift. This planet is constantly evolving and we are slaves who have no control whatsoever. Don't believe all the hipe, it's just another way for someone somewhere to make lots of money and scare the hell out of the human race.||
Most Popular Stories