Sean Gabb did a bit about this a little time ago, but this comment reproduced below is so important that I thought I would flag it up fully on the Mainblog (as opposed to on the Afterblog, the Mizzen-blog, the Foreblog or the Blogsprit.) I hope that E Zantryus does not mind; anyway it’s too late now, so there.

I admit (mea culpa) that I had not referred previously to the wikipedia entry on this matter, but here it is for us sceptics/contrarians/deniers/heretics (me? I’m a denier….soon I expect I will be a heretic) for everyone to go to and competely redraw so it contains at least some truths. Even at a somewhat cursory 30-second view, I note that the x-axes of those graphs which the writers use to show the relationship of atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations versus progress of Ice Ages, are exactly reversed from those on the wikipedia Ice Age page. Interesting anomaly!

We ought to recall that one Pope, I forget which, defined “heresy”  as “an exaggeration of the truth”.

E. Zantryus // Oct 26th 2007 at 7:04 am (edit)

When you do a Google search for “Global Warming,” one of the top two results that always pops up is the Wikipedia entry for this subject. Wikipedia is a free online encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Unfortunately, most of the people that sign up and edit this article exhibit a clear pro-global warming. This means that everyone from school children to the media are getting this highly biased view of Global Warming, when they research this topic via a Google search. Fortunately, however, ANYONE can sign up on Wikipedia free of charge in less than one minute and edit this article. I would encourage everyone to sign up and contribute to this article, to ensure it presents the correct view of global warming.

-E. Zantryus

About these ads


  1. It maybe a little much to call it a hoax.

  2. Well, all I am doing is responding in kind like the SAS are reputed to do – picking up the enemy’s weapons and using them.

    If it was not a hoax, then why are all the measures proposed consisting of (a) taxations by bureaucrats, (b) prohibitions of this or that (by bureaucrats) (c) threats?

    Why also is there no admission of the truth, which is that the planet has NO settled “climate”?

    (Which it can’t – for it has (a) a watery oxidizing atmosphere, and (b) it is quite near its star and experiences 1400 watts/sq metre impinging normally, plus-or-minus a fair range of that over shortish timescales like 1,000 years – and worse over longer ones!)

  3. Try explaing that to the average politician, however, I would prefer to just call it a theory.

    Maybe the general population needs educating about facts and theory, which brings us neatly back to Mr Blair and his educational spin doctors.

    The one issue that does get my goat is the lack of truly independent evidence. As you say there is always a political slant normally involving lots of money as well a bureaucrats.

    This year I am teaching a new IBO Physics course which for the first time has mentioned climate change as a possibility, the IBO have been careful not to say it is a certain event and they only suggest some possible theories for why it might be happening. This could be quite a thought provoking topic for both myself and the students.