Wikipedia to Start Restricting Editing?

Excellent decision IMO. It holds editors accountable. There is no reason why a site like Wikipedia allows anonymous editing when it is used by so many people for references. I am sure there are many individuals that use Wikipedia to start any research or curb any obscure curiosity.

They already have done this to many parts of wikipedia. The fact is that the people who run wikipidia are liberal hacks. They will simply move all the available editing positions to other liberal hacks.

Global warming, CO2, Election pages. These are controlled access points and the people selected to control them are liberal hacks. I will never use wikipedia for anything. Bunch of partican jerks is who runs the place.

Not sure what a liberal hack is, but I agree that subjects have been hijacked by people with a .... somewhat different and peculiar view :-)
It is like Fox News: get your facts foxed.

Pretty funny! A person using "A Stoner" as their login calling other people "liberal hacks". I got a chuckle out of that.

It's been my experience that Wikipedia has always provided restrictions if a particular source has repeatedly entered false information. The school I work for is blocked from making changes because so many kids tried goofing up Wikipedia that the school's IP address is now blocked from editing (but not searching).

You know. you people harping on me about my name are about as fun as all the teachers who thought using my LAST name along with Mr. was a good way to get my attention. Mr. Stoner, could you come up to the front of the class?

People at wikipedia are obsessed with sources and facts, not liberalism.

Wikipedia is quite informative and accurate..where else could learn how the civil war started after that japanese guy attacked Pearl Baily............

Master Exon, go out and look up the specific two specific areas where I noted the bias and see what people who have sources and facts are saying about how wikipedia handles any disent from the polically correct perspective. These people have peer reviewed papers that refute anthropogenic global warming, thier positions are not represented and in fact attacked by the very same method users in this forum attack; name calling such as denier, oil company funded and other even less valuable scientific methods of ensuring that wikipedia only presents the Al Gore version of global warming.


The fact is that Global Warming Propagandists have far more monetary incentive to keep the Global Warming Slush Funds continuing. There are many reasons for these people to want to push the global warming theory. Funds, Al Gore politicized the hell out of the process for getting federal grant money for scientific research. If your proposal did not hint towards one of polically correct directions, no funding. Power, the fact is that Global Warming and Carbon Dioxide as an evil give power to the people who end up controlling carbon dioxide emissions. The fact that it is GLOBAL Warming gives directions towards a WORLD body that should be in control of this resource, which by the way, in a one to one ratio determines how rich you are, or your country is.

Scientist need money to do research, no government money for people who do not tow the line of Anthropogenic Caused Global Warming. Politicians want power, particularly the liberal leaning ones. The way to power is money, and having a near total control of the economy by rationing carbon emissions gives them near limitless power over the people. Liberals just want a one world, where the USA is subjugated to the world order, and if they can get the control strings of carbon emissions into the hands of some world body, say the United Nations, it would finally put the last nail in the coffin of Freedom and ressurect the leaders of the past, Stalin, Marx ...

The fact is that while you are right that they are concerned totally with sources and facts, it is not in the proper use of these things. They want to be the source of facts, and the reason is that they have a goal in mind, never mind that facts can either be correct or wrong and never mind that souces can be right or wrong. If mindless retarded people flock to the gospel of wiki for information and are too ignorant to understand the real science, then wikipedia moderators end up with quite a bit of power over people.

Carbon emissions controls in order to prevent a completely fake emergency, such as Carbon Dioxide Induced Global Warming will have profound impacts on every single person's life. How warm do you want your home in the winter? Cool in the summer? Do you want your car to be safe to drive? Because the only REAL way to increase fuel economy is to reduce the amount of metal, AKA armor for kids, put into the car, and lighter cars increase the likelyhood of injury and death in accidents. Do you want beef for dinner? Sorry, but it creates too much global warming methane, you will have to eat soybean burgers. Got milk? Only if it is soy based. Want electricity? Sorry, but we have converted to solar and wind only, and we have to ration it out, didn't you piss us off last week by telling the truth? no power for you! You like having high quality products? Tht nice phone you used to be able to buy made of real metal, sorry, too energy intensive, you will have to live with the plantlife encased iPhone that will deteriorate in 3 months time, it costs 5 times as much as the older model that would last 10 years or more, but hey, it is progress (progressive, another term for liberal". How many kids did you want? Well kids increase energy consumption, food consumption and thus increase global warming, thus you can have one, but only if you fill out the proper paperwork. The list can go on forever, because basically every single activity to do in your life puts out carbon dioxide. You cannot live without producing it, and giving GOVERNMENT the control of it will not stop at electricity plants, and it will not stop at cars, it will stop once you and everyone is a slave to the one world.

Thus, it only takes wiki one subject to be biased on for me to hate them. Global Warming and CO2.

That is the "people"'s problem . I find it astounding how many naive and ignorant people don't know wikipedia is not a real encyclopedia, but an "loudest voice" opinion poll.

It's one thing to be duped by believing something you saw on TV or the Internet (it's all real right?) but when the express intent is to allow ANYBODY to edit, there is no excuse.

Sadly people abuse Wikipedia and its not just normal people like you and I some companies have even edited the pages on them to remove things that can be seen as negative. Though stopping new users from editing would only make them wait to alter the pages and make several accounts at the same time. It won't fix anything in the end.

Are you, perchance, a contributor to Conservapedia?

I have yet to see a journal-quality research paper print a wikipedia citation. However, often times wikipedia makes an excellent springboard for such research. A well-written article with proper citations can lead to excellent sources.

Let us not be naieve about printed encyclopedias either - what gets included and who is chosen as an editor is a highly political process.

Oh, and I am glad to see the anti-climate change people took the opportunity to rant here today. So, counter-rant is in order... which part of global warming do you not believe? That our basic experiments in chemistry show that carbon dioxide, methane, and other gases are "greenhouse gasses" (that they help trap heat energy) OR that our basic measuring of human output of these gases by various agencies is completely out of whack? After all, how could mankind ever demonstrate the "greenhouse gas" effect with simple experimentation? And how could we ever measure and estimate output of these compounds from tail-pipes, cow farms, coal plant smoke stacks, and so forth? All this is bunk, right? You're not buying that one, just like you didn't buy that guy telling you there were these mysterious forces that pull two separate masses towards one another called gravity and that the Earth orbits around the sun (since one can OBVIOUSLY see the sun rises and moves across the sky while the Earth stays stationary).

*sigh* Yes, there are even people who believe that Earth is flat and seem capable of explaining away every experiment they encounter. Perhaps they should have their views represented in the classroom and on wikipedia's entries.

Because you have so eloquently demonstrated your political neutrality, you must obviously have grounds to declare who is or is not a "partisan" jerk.
Global Warming: Scientifically proven to become a potential problem in the future. Science shows us that our consumerist lifestyles and mass consumption of carbon-based energy leads to an increase in greenhouse gasses, made worse by the fact that rain forests around the globe are being cut down for greedy capitalist agendas. HOWEVER. There has also been evidence to suggest that global warming has in fact been occurring since roughly before the period in time when humans started to practice agriculture. In the end, it seems unavoidable. But is it not also true that some degree of global warming would have had to have taken place in order for the planet to come out of the ice age? And apparently one or both of the polar ice caps have experienced a colder than usual winter, resulting in the greatest increase in ice coverage recorded since the mid-to-late 20th century. That raises the question: is global warming that much of a big deal if we can't do anything about it? More importantly, why am I discussing this in the comments thread of a technology news article? No one knows! But still, everything I have laid out here has at least one real and credible source, but I can't be bothered to supply them. It's up to you to do the research! Ah, the Wiki model of consolidating information in action.

There is a serious flaw in your comment concerning Wiki. That serious flaw is the word "potential". The way you state it, it appears there is also a "potential" that global warming will never been a problem in the future. The point that A Stoner is making is that any information that casts ANY DOUBT on the possibility of global warming is deleted from the article. This indicates some sort of bias. If the article posted all the information available and not just the information that makes it seem that global warming is real, then we would not be having this conversation.

Of course, Intelligent Design proponents tend to make the same claims about the treatment of evolution in school textbooks. You have to consider who is making the accusation. The bias may not be Wikipedia's, and Stoner's own definition of "legitimate research" could be suspect.

Bassically it comes down to this. Go to CO2 page on wiki. It will state for fact that CO2 is the major greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Fact is that Water Vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere. Water Vapor contributes between 80% and 95% of all of th misnamed greenhouse effect. This % depends on calculations as well as humidity. Go into the CO2 site after finding reliable research that talks about this and cite it as you make an edit to the CO2 database, and within 24 hours your information will have been deleted by one of WIKI's superusers who have special powers, like the ability to ban your account. I am not certain if CO2 is even unlocked for any editing anymore. When it was, it was still locked as far as what POLITICAL position CO2 held by a POLITICALLY motivated superuser of WIKI.

The same thing with global warming. The totally discredited hockey stick is still there, as a fact. Even though countless studies in peer reviewed science journals has totally destroyed it's findings. Every single part of the global warming page in wiki is tailored to indoctrinate people into thinking that global warming is real, it is settled science, and there is no dissent, except by people like flat earthers and holocaust deniers. Wiki is run by liberal progressive statist who do not have the intent of having an open honest encyclopedia written by non paid citizens. Wiki is a farce.

Okay, wait, hold up here.

That is a fact, there's no problem stating it as such. This much as been recognized since at least the turn of the 20th century (Arrhenius, the guy whose name is probably best known to high school students when it comes to acid-base chemistry, worked out that human emissions of CO2 would be powerful enough to warm up the global climate way back in the late 19th century). Subsequent research has only confirmed the role of CO2 as a powerful greenhouse gas. Are you going to tell me that it's not a major greenhouse gas?

[citation]Fact is that Water Vapor is the single largest greenhouse gas in our atmosphere.[/citation]
In terms of its concentration in the atmosphere and contribution to the greenhouse effect, yes. That doesn't contradict the idea that "CO2 is a major greenhouse gas." In fact, in both abundance and magnitude, it's right behind water vapor. Also, CO2 is much longer-lived in the atmosphere than WV. WV molecules stick around in the troposphere for less than two weeks on average, CO2 can stick around for centuries. This makes the problem of accumulation much greater than that of WV. WV also plays a feed-back role, where warmer temperatures let the atmosphere soak up more WV, which leads to more warming. Thus the problem of WV can also be trace back, to an extent, to CO2 concentration.

[citation]Water Vapor contributes between 80% and 95% of all of th misnamed greenhouse effect.[/citation]
A) Sauce? I've only seen it put at between 40-70% myself.
B) Why is it "misnamed?"

[citation]This % depends on calculations as well as humidity.[/citation]
What does this sentence even mean?

[citation]Go into the CO2 site after finding reliable research that talks about this and cite it as you make an edit to the CO2 database, and within 24 hours your information will have been deleted by one of WIKI's superusers who have special powers, like the ability to ban your account. [/citation]
A) What site? A Wikipedia page? Which one?
B) What "database?" I haven't seen any database in any of the Wiki's CO2 pages.
C) What sort of reliable research? Since you seem to be experienced with this, perhaps you could drop some names/titles?
D) Is it possible that this is being deleted because it doesn't relate to the article in question?

[citation]I am not certain if CO2 is even unlocked for any editing anymore. When it was, it was still locked as far as what POLITICAL position CO2 held by a POLITICALLY motivated superuser of WIKI.[/citation]
I don't see any locked content notices on the pages related to CO2 and climate change.

[citation]The same thing with global warming. The totally discredited hockey stick is still there, as a fact.[/citation]
A) Where? I've just looked at the Global warming page, and the only place I see any graph related to Mann et al. 1999 (the "Hockey Stick Graph) is where the data is shown on a graph that also combines about half a dozen other temperature reconstructions along with the instrumental data.

B) It only seems to be "totally discredited" when an anti-AGW person is talking. Other times it seems to be addressed as problematic but generally correct in its broad conclusions.

[citation] Even though countless studies in peer reviewed science journals has totally destroyed it's findings.[/citation]
I haven't seen that, actually. And Wikipedia's entry on the Hockey Stick Graph Controversy is pretty thorough and balanced: They keep a running tab on it, too.

[citation]Every single part of the global warming page in wiki is tailored to indoctrinate people into thinking that global warming is real...[/citation]
It -IS- real, according to the vast majority of the experts. The general consensus is A) global warming is happening, B) human activity is driving it significantly. Nowadays there is not one single major scientific organization which will deny either of these two things. For now, the very best that science can say is "yep, it's real." Even the traditional hold-out, the American Association of Petroleum Geology (wonder why they held out so long?), have grudgingly admitted this much.

[citation]... it is settled science, and there is no dissent, except by people like flat earthers and holocaust deniers.[/citation]
I wouldn't go THAT far (the evidence for a round earth is significantly better established and more fully understood). Also, where in the Wikipedia page does it make any comparison between the anti-AGW movement and Holocaust Deniers?
As to dissent, by and large the dissent comes most loudly from those with monetary ties to fossil fuel industries. Non-scientists like Steven Milloy and scientists like Fred Singer, both of whom have money trails leading back to Exxon Mobil and Philip-Morris, have denied not only anthropogenic global warming but also (coincidentally), the danger of second-hand smoke. They also have a strong connection to "free-market" think-tanks, which also get lots of money from fossil fuel and other industries.
So what we have is a situation where most scientists agree one way, and a small number disagree. Of those that disagree, there's a demonstrable link between many of them and the industries that would suffer the most from increased government regulation of greenhouse gas emissions.
Now, which do you find more likely?
A) Most scientists are being swindled or are knowing conspirators in perpetrating a hoax. Only a handful of scientists are brave enough to speak the truth.
B) Most scientists follow the facts and generally seek the most accurate descriptions of nature, eschewing BS that lacks evidence to support it. A small number of scientists are either incapable of making this distinction or are willing to go along with the BS if there is money involved.

And before you even say "scientists only support warming to get research funds," I'm going to shoot that down right now. Scientists can achieve far more wealth and notoriety by OVERTURNING CONSENSUS VIEWS than they can by simply affirming them. The problem here is that to overturn the consensus, there must be extremely strong evidence to the contrary of that position. Scientists in general are highly skeptical, either by their nature or by their training and experience. They are constantly checking each other's work for errors and trying to find fault with the accepted wisdom when something problematic arises that it can't explain. It goes strongly against the very nature of science, as a practice and as a calling, to lie or perpetuate lies. It would be nearly impossible for the vast bulk of the scientific community to knowingly support a hoax, or to be incompetent enough not to recognize one after sufficient scrutiny. In general, it is far more likely that a small number of self-interested or incompetent scientists can be lead to support false conclusions at odds with the consensus.

[citation]Wiki is run by liberal progressive statist who do not have the intent of having an open honest encyclopedia written by non paid citizens. Wiki is a farce.[/citation]
Again, I'm going to ask: are you a contributor to Conservapedia?

Argh, stupid tags.

1) The formula used by scientist in the Global Warming Bandwagon sets the altitude of the atmosphere at infinity.
2) The government spends $BILLIONS$/year in research, they only fund projects that need to be funded, so how does a scientist make his research seem needed? he makes it sound as though there is a crisis coming that his research can shed light on. So, that is why scientists go along, it is a play to get pay.
3) Every single situation on this planet has what is called negative feedback, that is why on average for the known planets, earth has a very moderate and unchanging climate. The only way that CO2 causes the doomsday climate crisis is if there is positive feedback. The problem is that if there was this positive feedback, humans would not exist, even dinosaur bones would not exist, life would have never existed on this planet. But for the modelers the positive feedback forcing is at a minimum 5 times the real value of CO2 forcing. In a nutshell positive feedback takes the direction of things and keeps it going. Negative feedbacks slow or stop things from moving. Cloud cover is one of the things that science has yet to understand well enough to model, and the Global Warming Modelers use this ignorance to advantage, it is the primary positive feedback they use. While it is used in models, global warming scientist have never actually gone out into the world to find out if it is real, it works for their agenda.
4)CO2 increases ALWAYS follow temperature increases by hundreds of years. The reason is that the vast majority of CO2 that exists is in the oceans. Cold water holds more CO2 than warm water. Thus when temperatures increase, the oceans get warmer over time and release some of the absorbed CO2 into the atmosphere. I did some calculations one time using government numbers and I came up far short of the amount of CO2 humans emited and the actual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere. I am sure I did something wrong, I am not a scientist, but it was off by quite a bit.

Technically it's accurate: everything in the Universe is affected by Earth's gravity. HOWEVER! I would like to see a source for this, and I would like you explain why this is a problem for the models. The effect could be negligible if the model accurately incorporates the thinning of the atmosphere away from Earth.

"2) The government spends $BILLIONS$/year in research, they only fund projects that need to be funded, so how does a scientist make his research seem needed? he makes it sound as though there is a crisis coming that his research can shed light on. So, that is why scientists go along, it is a play to get pay."
Already pre-empted this. And besides, if this were true then the demonstrable ANTI-GLOBAL WARMING POLICIES of the last Administration and its six years of Republican control of both houses would make the government A) at the very least, somewhat hostile to the idea of glboal warming and funding such research (think of what they did to research involving embryonic stem cells for examples of science that conflicts with their ideology), and B) Congress would have cut off funding once it became clear that the idea of global warming (which, remember, Republicans were already dubious about to begin with) was all just a trick to get money. C) This would mean that scientists would be wasting money on research that they know is a hoax instead of doing what they'd prefer to be doing, finding out how the natural world works. See what I wrote about scientists and the scientific community, and then figure out why this insinuation is not only insulting, it's also ridiculous on its face.

"3) Every single situation on this planet has what is called negative feedback, that is why on average for the known planets, earth has a very moderate and unchanging climate."
This statement doesn't make much sense. You seem to be implying that the environment is incapable of catastrophic swings in climate. We know this to be false: it can get both too warm and too cold for some species over time and they will die off because of changes in the climate. Again, please think about what you're saying before you say it.

"The only way that CO2 causes the doomsday climate crisis is if there is positive feedback. The problem is that if there was this positive feedback, humans would not exist, even dinosaur bones would not exist, life would have never existed on this planet."
There is positive feedback, and you provide the evidence for it later on in your collection of misconceptions. I'll get to that in a moment. For now, I'm just going to say that your claim is exaggerated on both fronts. 1) Nobody thinks that global warming will be a "doomsday" kind of thing. It will not kill off humans (though it may already be killing off some of the more environmentally sensitive species). It will, however, severely disrupt the conditions upon which our modern civilizations depend to provide us with abundant food and other resources. My home state is no stranger to droughts, but imagine if South Carolina actually became a desert? For a state that depends heavily on agriculture for its economy, that's devastating. It could happen even more readily to the continent's Breadbasket areas, which feed even more people than my state does. What if Nebraska stopped being able to produce so much corn and wheat? What if California's productive areas dried up? You will face a food shortage at least as severe as the last one when grain prices went crazy, and it won't be nearly as short-lived. That's just considering the possibility of desertification in ONE country, one that's already modernized and wealthy. Apply those same conditions to developing countries and watch the global economy tank as famine consumes millions more lives.
You not only exaggerate the claims of global warming advocates, you also exaggerate the effects of "positive feedback" on the planet. It's completely ignorant to say "if this were true life couldn't possibly exist!" Earth is not Venus, and we won't get to that stage in runaway global warming. There have been times when the Earth was apparently warmer than it is now (though not in the last 2000 years), and life managed to get by. The problem will be that this climate change might happen too quickly for us to adapt without cost, and certainly too quickly for some other species. Some are already suspected of dying off as a result of climate change.

"But for the modelers the positive feedback forcing is at a minimum 5 times the real value of CO2 forcing. In a nutshell positive feedback takes the direction of things and keeps it going."
I'd like to see a source for this "it takes five times more" stuff, and also, does this apply to the kind of warming that climate scientists REALLY expect, or just your imaginary Earth Sterilizing Heat Wave?

Also, you haven't provided me with any sources so far, even when I've asked for them. That's pretty rude. You also haven't really responded to anything I've said already, you just spouted off more and more stuff for me to address. Quit Gish-Galloping me and have a DISCUSSION, or shut up.


"Negative feedbacks slow or stop things from moving. Cloud cover is one of the things that science has yet to understand well enough to model, and the Global Warming Modelers use this ignorance to advantage, it is the primary positive feedback they use."
Aren't you the one who claimed that water vapor in the atmosphere is more potent than CO2 as a greenhouse gas? What do you think clouds are made of?

"While it is used in models, global warming scientist have never actually gone out into the world to find out if it is real, it works for their agenda."
You're telling me nobody (excuse me, no "global warming scientist," whatever THAT means) has gone out and studied the effects of clouds on climate? You're full of crap. Climatologists and atmospheric researchers are ALWAYS studying the clouds. Just because they have enormous amounts of data and very little firm conclusions from it doesn't mean they are ignoring clouds and surreptitiously fudging them in as forcings for warming. Again, please give the scientific community SOME credit here. It's ridiculous how malicious, dishonest, and incompetent you assume they are. Show me some evidence that climate scientists are lying about the role of clouds in their models.

"4)CO2 increases ALWAYS follow temperature increases by hundreds of years."
And now we get to the positive feedback I talked about before. What you don't realize is how this CO2 is released, and what it does once it is released. The CO2 starts being released once things warm up, especially as permafrost melts, oceans warm up and hold less gases in solution, and bogs release more gases from decaying detritus. So in the paleoclimate past, the initial warming releases more CO2. What happens there is that the CO2 perpetuates the warming by acting as a greenhouse gas. In this case, the CO2 is a positive feedback mechanism which contributes to further warming.
That's how it USED to work, anyway. Nowadays it's not the climate warming up that releases more CO2 into the atmosphere, it's the fossil fuels we're digging up out of their underground lock-boxes and burning for power. All the carbon that was locked away beneath the ground as coal and oil and natural gas is retrieved, turned into CO2 through combustion, and pumped out into the atmosphere where it hasn't been since before humankind first walked upright. So instead of the climate leading the CO2 increases, now what we OBSERVE to happen is CO2 increase leading the climate change. The difference between paleoclimate changes and modern climate changes? Human activity.

"I did some calculations one time using government numbers and I came up far short of the amount of CO2 humans emited and the actual increase in CO2 in the atmosphere."
What 'government numbers?' And why is it 'government this, government that?' Surely you realize that until just a couple of years ago, the US government was far more sympathetic to the interests of industry than environmentalists, right? That may still be the case even today, but at least the evidence and scientific support for climate change have become so overwhelming that even the government is starting to respond (albeit with fits and starts and foot-dragging).