AGW Today: Wikipropaganda And Coral (Again)

How in the hell did this end up on cBS News? Oh, right, it is their fairness bit, printing articles from National Review. Must drive the progressives at CBS bonkers

Ever wonder how Al Gore, the United Nations, and company continue to get away with their claim of a “scientific consensus” confirming their doomsday view of global warming? Look no farther than Wikipedia for a stunning example of how the global-warming propaganda machine works.

As you (or your kids) probably know, Wikipedia is now the most widely used and influential reference source on the Internet and therefore in the world, with more than 50 million unique visitors a month.

In theory Wikipedia is a “people’s encyclopedia” written and edited by the people who read it – anyone with an Internet connection. So on controversial topics, one might expect to see a broad range of opinion.

Not on global warming. On global warming we get consensus, Gore-style: a consensus forged by censorship, intimidation, and deceit.

Read the rest for what happened to Lawrence Sololmon when he tried to correct an article with factual information.

As far as the coral goes

Nearly half of U.S. coral reef ecosystems are considered to be in “poor” or “fair” condition according to a new analysis of the health of coral reefs under U.S. jurisdiction by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, NOAA.

“The report shows that this is a global issue,” said Tim Keeney, deputy assistant secretary of commerce for oceans and atmosphere and co-chair of the U.S. Coral Reef Task Force. “While the report indicates reefs in general are healthier in the Pacific than the Atlantic, even remote reefs are subject to threats stemming from climate change, as well as illegal fishing and marine debris.”

The fishing and marine debris, ie, garbage, I’ll agree with. But, I wonder how well the coral does when the water gets colder. Last time I checked, coral are warm water species.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at 1800flowers.com. Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

4 Responses to “AGW Today: Wikipropaganda And Coral (Again)”

  1. manbearpig says:

    How dare anyone try to let a little thing like facts get onto a Wikipedia page. That is exactly why Wikipedia cannot be taken seriously as a source of any REAL information.

  2. Silke says:

    Teach said: Last time I checked, coral are warm water species.

    Yes, but even a small rise in temperature for a long enough period of time can damage them:

    Small but prolonged rises in sea temperature force coral colonies to expel their symbiotic, food-producing algae, a process known as bleaching. While the dying reefs, which turn ghostly white, can recover from such events, many do not.

    http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2006/05/warming-coral.html

  3. Wiki is good on some stuff, but, as soon as any sort of politics is involved, yup, crap.

    I am aware of that, Silke. Thing is, it has happened many times before, and will happen many times again. This story was just part of the doom and gloom put forth by people who want to blame man and make some $$$ off if it.

  4. manbearpig says:

    Well, yeah, Wikipedia can be good for certain things. But you have to be VERY careful with it if you are going to use it as a source. And if you use wikipedia as a sole source, you’re just plain stupid.

Bad Behavior has blocked 12146 access attempts in the last 7 days.