Sunday, 22 March 2020

Climate science voodoo - what do we mean by this?

I'll take an example of the actual voodoo. This is a well-cited article often given as proof of the greenhouse gas effect. It is

Philipona, R., B. Durr, A. Ohmura, and C. Ruckstuhl (2005), Anthropogenic greenhouse forcing and strong water vapor feedback increase temperature in Europe, Geophys. Res. Lett., 32, L19809, doi:10.1029/2005GL023624

It is open access. So you can read it. In a nutshell, the errors made by the authors of this paper are:

  • they base their claims on models of a greenhouse gas effect
  • they do not show this greenhouse gas effect by means of fundamental science (controlled experiment and/or observation)
  • The greenhouse gas effect they invoke contradicts fundamental science. It contradicts the laws of thermodynamics. We know the laws of thermodynamics are settled science.
  • they do not properly consider other causes (such as cloud albedo changes) for the effects they look at over this time period.

They claim that:

"gradual temperature and humidity increases from west to east [Europe] are not related to circulation but must be due to non-uniform water vapour feedback" AKA a greenhouse gas effect
  1. They do not show a "greenhouse gas effect".
  2. They do not show water vapour feedback. They defer to God-like models.
  3. They do not really consider changing cloud albedo effects instead as a cause for the processes they discuss. They summarily dismiss it.
  4. They assume a correlation of temperature changes with water vapour feedback causes nearly all the temperature changes. They assume a correlation of water vapour changes with atmospheric carbon dioxide increases causes all the water vapour changes. Other than deferring to models, they do not show these assumed causations scientifically.
  5. They cite modellers (such as Held & Soden, 2000) to support their belief there's "no doubt that water vapour is the chief greenhouse gas" Which is fair enough. But I think everyone agrees - if there was a greenhouse gas effect the main perp. would be water vapour. Even slayers will agree with that one "is there was". But there isn't is there?
  6. They are still citing Tyndall from 1861 in support of fundamental science for a greenhouse gas effect! Lazy. The fact, they cannot cite or do any modern controlled experiments or observations in support of their ideas is sloppy, unscientific, and evidence of group-think.
  7. They do not cite any basic science for a greenhouse gas effect. By basic science - I mean results from controlled experiments and observations.
  8. They do not acknowledge that their precious greenhouse gas effect contradicts basic science. They ignore this anomaly.
  9. They invoke "radiative forcing"; which is itself dodgy because it assumes all radiation frequencies are equivalent in warming the surface (which "radiative forcing" assumes). Radiative forcing is pseudoscience. I maintain that the effect claimed for "radiative forcing" must be independently shown by controlled experiment and observation. This has never been tried. In particular, no one has yet shown a radiative forcing over liquid water, which of course, makes up 71% of earth's surface. By "radiative forcing", I mean, identical warming effects for radiations of different frequencies but the same wattage. That is what they assume. It has never been shown.
  10. They claim anthropogenic global warming (by invoking its models), but never show it. They assume previous modelling work is God - 'settled science'; and a 100% correct description of reality. They do not show that a change in man-made carbon dioxide atmospheric concentrations directly cause changes to water vapour concentrations in the atmosphere. Again they just assume it.
  11. I believe the reason why they are lost in model group-think is because they never gave serious consideration to greenhouse gas model critics and alternative explanations for a greenhouse effect (atmospheric warming of planetary surfaces); such as an "atmospheric heating effect".

The authors of this paper make a litany of errors. They assume untested, non-validated greenhouse gas models are God. This, no doubt, helped their careers, but it is harmful to science.

Wednesday, 18 March 2020

Coronavirus report, suppressed by Chinese authorities. English translation

This is the Caixin Financial News report they tried to suppress


Exclusive | Tracking the source of New Coronavirus gene sequencing: when the alarm sounded

February 26 2020 at 22:10 from Caixin

Isolation, detection and genetic sequencing of the new crown virus is the basis for understanding and judging the infectiousness and harmfulness of the new crown virus. When and how did this research begin? On January 11th, the Wuhan Health and Health Commission stopped updating for several days, and for the first time renamed "viral pneumonia of unknown cause" to "new coronavirus-infected pneumonia", saying that as of 24 o'clock on January 10, 2020, Initial diagnosis of 41 cases of new coronary pneumonia

[Financial new network] (Reporters high Yu Peng Yanfeng Yang Rui Feng Yu Ding Madan Meng)

Tracing back to the source, as of February 24, more than 2660 people have died and more than 77,000 people have been diagnosed with the new coronavirus. When was this new coronavirus similar to SARS discovered? Caixin reporters conducted interviews from various sources and sorted out relevant papers and database materials to verify that the information puzzle gradually emerged completely and completely.

All kinds of evidence show that before the end of December last year, no less than 9 samples of unknown pneumonia cases were collected from various hospitals in Wuhan. Gene sequencing showed that the pathogen was a SARS-like coronavirus. These test results were reported back to the hospital and reported to the health care. Health Commission and Disease Control System. Until January 9th, CCTV reported that the "Wuhan Viral Pneumonia Pathogen Testing Results Preliminary Evaluation Expert Group" officially announced the pathogen as "new coronavirus".

The first case will come out on December 27

On December 15, 2019, a 65-year-old male delivery man in the South China Seafood Market started having a fever. On December 18, he came to the emergency department of the Wuhan Central Hospital (Nanjing Road District) to see a doctor. The doctor suspected that it might be community-acquired pneumonia, and admitted him to the emergency department ward of the hospital. Community-acquired pneumonia is a generic term for pneumonia caused by a variety of microorganisms such as bacteria, viruses, chlamydia, and mycoplasma. The main clinical symptoms are cough, with or without sputum, and chest pain.

On December 22, the patient became more ill and entered the ICU. Doctors used various antibiotics to treat it. Professor Zhao Su, chief physician of the Department of Respiratory Medicine of Wuhan Central Hospital, told Caixin reporter that on December 24, a deputy chief physician of Respiratory Medicine took a bronchoscopy sample from the patient, and then sent the patient's alveolar lavage fluid sample to the first Tripartite testing agency Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology Co., Ltd. conducts NGS testing, hoping to use its second-generation high-throughput gene sequencing technology (mNGS) based on metagenomics to find pathogens. Alveolar lavage is a treatment that removes inflammatory secretions in the alveoli and improves respiratory function. For lower respiratory tract and lung diseases, the content of pathogens in alveolar lavage fluid is higher than that of throat swabs.

Weiyuan Gene, the full name of Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology Co., Ltd., was established in June 2018. Its job advertisement states that it focuses on precision medicine in oncology and infectious etiology, and has a sequencing platform (NGS) based on second-generation high-throughput sequencing technology.

"Since the start of BGI's sequencing technology, many gene sequencing companies have appeared in China. In recent years, at our various medical seminars, the second-generation high-throughput gene sequencing technology has been continuously introduced. These companies have also sent medicines. Delegates went to major hospitals to preach. "Zhao Su told Caixin reporter. BGI ( 300676.SZ ) is called Shenzhen BGI Gene Co., Ltd., formerly known as Beijing BGI Gene Research Center, and was established in 1999. It has successively completed a number of international human genome projects in China, rice and the giant panda genome project. Genomic research with international advanced level. In July 2017, it was listed on the GEM under the title of “The First Gene Sequencing Unit” and is the world's largest genomics R & D institution.

Another doctor from Wuhan Union Medical College Hospital also introduced, "One test, 6 million base sequences, 3,000 yuan, this 3000 yuan can find out what virus or bacteria the pathogen is, it may save lives."

Generally, the gene sequencing company should report the test results three days later, that is, December 27, but Weiyuan Gene did not give a written report. "They just called us and said it was a new coronavirus." Zhao Su said. At this time, the patient was transferred to Wuhan Tongji Hospital on December 25.

On February 21, 2020, the genetic test information of this case was disclosed by an article of WeChat public account "Wei Yuan Gene". The official article wrote that the Chinese Journal of Medical Sciences (English version) published a paper on January 27, introducing the discovery of new coronaviruses, and the remote genes involved in the early discovery of new coronaviruses.

The aforementioned paper, published in the Chinese Medical Journal (English version), refers to the article "Identifying a new coronavirus that can cause severe pneumonia in humans: a descriptive study" published on January 29. The authors are from the Institute of Pathogen Biology of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences / Peking Union Medical College (hereinafter referred to as the Institute of Pathogens of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences), China-Japan Friendship Hospital, Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control, Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, Wuhan Central Hospital, Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology Co., Ltd. and other units. Xu Teng, the chief technology officer of Weiyuan Gene, is the co-first author of the paper, and CEO Yongjun Li and chief operating officer Wang Xiaorui are the authors. Li Yongjun was a former bioinformatics analyst at the Institute of Pathogens, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences.

According to the paper, the researchers collected clinical data and bronchoalveolar lavage samples from five patients with severe pneumonia at the Jinyintan Hospital of Wuhan, Hubei Province, and performed pathogenic metagenomics (mNGS) analysis. As a result, a coronavirus with 79% similarity to the nucleotide sequence of the SARS virus had never been reported in these samples. The article shows that among the samples of these five patients, the earliest clinical sample for genetic sequencing was a 65-year-old patient sample collected on December 24. He developed symptoms on December 15 with symptoms of high fever, cough, and low sputum [sputum = saliva and mucus coughed up from the respiratory tract]. He was admitted on the 18th and admitted to the ICU on December 22. After 16 days, she continued to have a high fever and developed severe shortness of breath.

As well as the above information, an article titled "Recording the First Discovery of a New Coronavirus" was published on Jan. 28 by the WeChat account "Hill Dog". The author claimed to work in a private enterprise located in Huangpu, Guangzhou in the message area. The article records: "I just went to work on December 26, 2019, and I would like to take a look at the results of the automatic interpretation of mNGS pathogenic microorganisms as usual. As a surprise, It was found that one sample reported a sensitive pathogen, SARS coronavirus, with dozens of sequences, and this sample only had such a meaningful pathogen. I was anxious, and quickly checked the detailed analysis data in the background, and found that the similarity was not It is very high, only about 94.5%. In order to confirm the reliability of the results, a detailed analysis was started. The analysis results of the exploration version suggest that this pathogen is most similar to Bat SARS like coronavirus, with an overall similarity of 87% The similarity with SARS is about 81%. "

According to the author, the sample was collected on December 24th. The article mentioned, "The front-end feedback is that this patient is seriously ill and is anxious to test the results, but such a major pathogen cannot be reported easily. At noon, I had an emergency meeting with several leaders and decided to continue in-depth analysis and delay the release of reports. Share the data with the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences for analysis. " The Institute of Pathogens of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences is one of the authors of the above-mentioned "Chinese Medical Journal (English Version)" thesis and Li Yuanjun, CEO of Weiyuan Gene, previously served as the Institute of Pathogens of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences, directly under the director of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Academician Wang Chen, vice president of the Chinese Academy of Engineering.

On December 27, the laboratory assembled a nearly complete viral genome sequence, and the data was also shared with the Institute of Pathogens, Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences. "It can basically be confirmed that this patient's sample does indeed contain a new virus similar to Bat SARS like coronavirus." The article wrote, "The information obtained at the time was that this patient had returned to his hometown and did not rule out contact with bats. Realized the potential of the problem Severity, the laboratory was completely cleaned and disinfected, the samples were harmlessly destroyed, and relevant personnel of the experimental operation conducted relevant monitoring. The doctor had been communicated before noon, and the patient was also isolated. "

"It should be that we discovered this new coronavirus for the first time." The article "Little Dog" also gave a screenshot of the GISAID database. "From the data submitted on the GISAID database website, it is also us that collected the earliest samples."

GISAID is a global influenza virus sharing data platform. After registration, researchers can upload the virus gene sequences they extracted. Each strain will have a unique number, and the time of collection, submission date, submission laboratory, etc. will also be recorded. Caixin reporters found that according to the time of sample collection, the earliest sequence of a new coronavirus gene on GISAIDS was collected on December 24, 2019, and uploaded by the Institute of Pathogens of the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences on January 11. It can be found by comparing the number, name, etc. This is the sample sequence of their company participating in the test marked in the screenshot of the article "Little Dog".

The article also mentioned that on December 27th and 28th, the company's leaders communicated with the hospital and the disease control (department) by phone. On the 29th and 30th, they even went to Wuhan to personally report and exchange all the analysis results with the leaders of the hospital and disease control center. Including all our analysis results and the analysis results of the Institute of Pathogens of the Academy of Medical Sciences. Everything is under intense, confidential, and strict investigation (at this time, the hospital and the disease control person already knew that there were many similar patients. After we communicated the test results Emergency response has begun). "

The above-mentioned sample owner who completed the earliest genetic sequencing was later killed at the Jinyintan Hospital. The research results of the new virus were detected on December 27, and did not play any role at that time.

"SARS Coronavirus" Detonates Social Media

In fact, in addition to the earliest known case, at the end of December 2019, two samples of "unknown cause of pneumonia" from Wuhan Central Hospital were sent to different institutions for genetic sequencing. The test results of the two cases had a significant impact on the disclosure of the epidemic in different ways.

On December 27, a 41-year-old man named Chen visited the Nanjing Road District of Wuhan Central Hospital. "He is an accountant and lives in Wuchang. He has never been to the South China Seafood Market in Hankou. He started to have fever on December 16 without any obvious cause. The maximum body temperature was 39.5 ° C, accompanied by palpitations, chest tightness, difficulty breathing after exercise, and physical strength Significant decline, first seeing the doctor at Jiangxia District First People's Hospital on December 22, did not improve. "Zhao Su told Caixin reporter," He is an acquaintance of a doctor in our hospital, transferred to our hospital on the 27th, also an emergency department Closed. "On the evening of December 27, the patient took a bronchoscope sample in the ICU of the hospital's respiratory department.

On December 30, the Beijing Boao Medical Laboratory reported the patient's report to the doctor, and the test result was "SARS coronavirus" (SARS coronavirus).

The Beijing Boao Medical Laboratory test report obtained by Caixin reporter showed that high-confidence positive indicators of SARS coronavirus and Pseudomonas aeruginosa were detected in the patient's sample. The explanation for SARS coronavirus is: a single-stranded positive-strand RNA virus, which spreads by close droplets or contacts the patient's respiratory secretions, which can cause a significant infectious infection that can affect multiple organs Systemic pneumonia, also known as atypical pneumonia.

"Their gene bank is not complete or it may not have been reviewed, so they made a small mistake. In fact, it is not the same thing as SARS, it is a new type of coronavirus." A genetic sequencing expert told Caixin reporter.

However, it was this test report that made a small mistake, which directly caught the attention of Wuhan doctors, and sounded the public whistle through social media, which saved a considerable number of people's lives to a certain extent.

On December 30th, the test report of Beijing Boao Medical Laboratory appeared in the WeChat of the doctor in Wuhan Central Hospital. At 17:48 on the evening of the same day, Li Wenliang , an ophthalmologist at Wuhan Central Hospital , released a message to the classmates: "7 cases of SARS were confirmed in the South China Fruit and Seafood Market, and they were isolated in our hospital emergency department"; Hospital neurologist Liu Wen published a message in his work WeChat group "Xiehe Honghui Shennei", saying: "Just a case of coronal infectious virus pneumonia was confirmed in Houhu District of the Second Hospital (that is, Wuhan Central Hospital). "SARS has been basically determined, nurses and sisters should not go out to shake." At 20:48, Xie Linka, a doctor at the Cancer Center of Wuhan Union Medical College, posted a message on the WeChat group of the Cancer Center. With many people suffering from unexplained pneumonia (similar to SARS), today our hospital has treated a number of pneumonia patients in the South China Seafood Market. Everyone pays attention to wearing masks and ventilation. ”All three doctors have been cautioned by the police since then.

On the same day, the author of the "Hill Dog" in Huangpu, Guangzhou, was also informed of the above news, and he wrote: "By December 30th, I heard that there were still many patients with similar symptoms, and the nerves broke down again. It ’s tense. Especially, it may be the afternoon of the 30th. A friend may have detected the same virus in the sample of another patient, but they sent a report that the SARS coronavirus was detected, and the news was detonated instantly. Now ... the friends shared the sequence for us to analyze. I analyzed it and it was indeed the same virus! The first idea in the subconscious was 'this virus is contagious!' "

The lid lifted by Li Wenliang and others allowed the genetic company to sequence this line's story, which intersects with another clinician's early warning story. At the Wuhan Central Hospital, doctors are not responding to routine treatment of emerging viral pneumonia patients, and hope to find answers through gene sequencing companies, while Zhang Jixian, director of the Department of Respiratory and Critical Care Medicine, Xinhua Hospital, Hubei Province, adjacent to the South China Seafood Market, December 26 Four consecutive unidentified pneumonia cases were received on the day. On December 27, Zhang Jixian reported the discovery of four "unknown viral pneumonias" to the hospital, and the hospital reported to the Jianghan CDC.

On December 28-29, Xinhua Hospital treated three more patients from the South China Seafood Market. They had similar symptoms of viral pneumonia. According to subsequent reports such as the Wuhan Evening News, at 1 pm on December 29, Xia Wenguang, deputy director of Xinhua Hospital, convened ten experts to discuss the seven cases. The experts agreed that the situation was unusual, and Xia Wenguang went directly to the provincial and municipal health authorities Report from the CDC. Also reported on the same day was the Public Health Department of Wuhan Central Hospital. In the afternoon of the same day, the Hubei Province, Wuhan City Health and Health Commission's Disease Control Office notified the provincial, city, and district level three disease control centers, Xinhua Hospital, and the Central Hospital Houhu Hospital to treat multiple patients with unknown pneumonia with a history of seafood market exposure. Start emergency response workflow. Hubei Provincial CDC, Wuhan CDC together with CDCs in Jianghan, Qiaokou and Dongxihu Districts began epidemiological investigations. Huang Chaolin, deputy director of Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital, came to Xinhua Hospital and took six of them. For patients, Wuhan Tongji Hospital also transferred the first patient in the central hospital for genetic testing to Jinyintan Hospital.

On December 30, the third-level disease control center formed the "Report on the Investigation and Disposal of Multiple Pneumonia Cases Reported by the Hospital in the South China Seafood Market". On the same day, the Wuhan Municipal Health and Health Commission issued an internal notice, mentioning that many medical institutions in Wuhan did have multiple unexplained pneumonia cases in succession, and was related to the Wuhan South China Seafood Wholesale Market, requiring medical institutions to report those who had received consultations in the past week. Patients with similar characteristics of unexplained pneumonia.

The Wuhan Municipal Health Commission's "Emergency Notice on Doing a Good Job in the Treatment of Unexplained Pneumonia" triggered by Zhang Jixian's insistence on reporting was soon exposed on the Internet, along with WeChat warnings from doctors such as Li Wenliang who saw the gene sequencing report. Let the epidemic information originated in Wuhan be transmitted to the outside world for the first time.

Warning from Shanghai

Another case sample from Wuhan Central Hospital comes from Houhu Hospital, which is also adjacent to the South China Seafood Market, and admitted to hospital one day earlier. The patient, also named Chen, is a 41-year-old self-employed member of the seafood market in Quanzhou, Fujian. He suffered from high fever of 40 ° C, systemic aches and pains, cough, sputum, shortness of breath, and shortness of breath after experiencing coldness on December 20, December 26. He was hospitalized in Houhu District of Wuhan Central Hospital with "fever cause, lung infection" on December 30th. The hospital took a bronchoscope sample on December 30th. An extra sample of respiratory lavage fluid was left in the refrigerator at -80. ° C environment.

"The reason why we have kept one more sample is because we have been involved in major national science and technology projects of China's major natural epidemic virus, such as Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center affiliated to Fudan University (hereinafter referred to as Shanghai Public Health Center) and Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention. Resources' project cooperation, cooperation agreement has been signed for five years in a row, Wuhan City Center for Disease Control is responsible for the collection of clinical samples and environmental specimens in Central China, and regularly sent to Shanghai Public Health Center for pathogen detection, they have biological safety The third-level (BSL-3) laboratory has a high-throughput sequencing and bioinformatics analysis platform, and our hospital is the sentinel hospital of Wuhan Center for Disease Control and Prevention. "Professor Zhao Su of Department of Respiratory Medicine, Wuhan Central Hospital.

On the afternoon of December 30, the samples were taken by a chief physician of Wuhan Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. On January 2nd, another researcher from Wuhan Centers for Disease Control and Prevention wrapped the samples in dry ice, iron boxes, and foam boxes, and shipped them to Shanghai by rail along with other animal specimens. On January 3, the team of Professor Zhang Yongzhen from Shanghai Public Health Clinical Center received the samples. This center belongs to Fudan University, Zhang Yongzhen is a researcher at the Institute of Infectious Diseases Prevention and Control of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention, and an adjunct professor at the Institute of Biomedicine of Fudan University and Shanghai Public Health Center. Under the funding of key research and development programs, he is engaged in scientific research such as zoonotic diseases, investigation of major natural epidemic-derived virus resources in China, and many hospitals, including Wuhan Central Hospital, Wuhan CDC, and the University of Sydney, Australia. As a member of the project team.

In the early morning of January 5, Zhang Yongzhen's research team detected a new SARS-like coronavirus from the samples and obtained the entire genome sequence of the virus through high-throughput sequencing. The evolutionary tree drawn based on the sequencing data also confirmed the new corona in Wuhan Viruses have never been seen in history. The Shanghai Public Health Center immediately reported to the competent authorities of the Shanghai Municipal Health Commission and the National Health Commission on the same day, reminding them that the new virus is homologous to SARS and should be transmitted through the respiratory tract. It is recommended that appropriate disease control and prevention measures be taken in public. On January 6, a secondary emergency response was initiated within the China CDC.

"We have been collaborating with Wuhan Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Wuhan Central Hospital, etc. to collect new natural epidemic viruses. This is part of our major national project, including the use of P3 laboratories. It was approved by the review. "A researcher at the Shanghai Public Health Center told Caixin reporter," We are a regular researcher, and found by accident that it is of great importance and report it immediately. "

At least nine samples collected for inspection at the end of last year

Caixin reporter confirmed that it is almost in front of Guangzhou Weiyuan Gene Technology Co., Ltd. and Beijing Boao Medical Laboratory, and several gene sequencing companies have obtained samples of unknown pneumonia cases from Wuhan Hospital. This includes an industry "leading leader", Huada Gene, who received a gene sequencing commission from Wuhan local hospital on December 26, 2019. On December 29, BGI's genetic sequencing of the case sample showed that the virus and SARS gene sequence similarity was as high as 80%, but not SARS, but a coronavirus that had not been seen before. BGI also used their SARS test kit to test the cases, and the results were negative, and it was negative for SARS.

A person from BGI told Caixin reporters that when they sequenced samples of unexplained viral pneumonia cases at the end of December, they were unaware that the virus had caused clinical infections in many people, and even already belonged to the same family. Aggregated infection. "We are a technology company doing gene sequencing. We accept a lot of sequencing commissions every day. When we come into contact with a large number of viruses, we also find many new viruses. There are many types of coronaviruses. Previously, there were only six coronaviruses including SARS Related, only SARS and MERS are more infectious to humans. At that time we did not know whether the virus was 'good' or 'bad'. "

BGI has a long-term cooperation with the local hospital in Wuhan. According to a survey by Caixin reporters, the local hospital in Wuhan in December 2019 sent at least 30 samples of difficult pneumonia to BGI for sequencing. Huada found a total of three cases of pneumonia that belonged to the new coronavirus infection. Except for the case on December 26, two other cases were collected on December 29 and 30, respectively. They mixed three cases of SARS-like coronaviruses, that is, combined the three viral gene sequence fragments to form a mixed viral gene sequence. On January 1, the test reports of three samples were reported to the Wuhan Municipal Health Commission. On January 3, BGI sequenced the virus in all three samples to a high-level sequence.

Caixin reporters found that as of January 19, 2020, a total of 13 samples of New Coronavirus genome sequences were uploaded on the GISAID platform. Except for Japan and Thailand, the remaining 10 are all uploaded by Chinese research institutes. From the time of sample collection, the earliest case was the one collected on December 24, 2019 and uploaded by the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences Pathogen. Eight more samples were collected on December 30, respectively, Wuhan Jinyintan Hospital and Hubei Provincial Center for Disease Control (1), Jinyintan Hospital and Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences (5), China CDC Virus Disease Prevention and Control Office (Article 2). In addition, the Institute for Viral Disease Control and Prevention of the Chinese Center for Disease Control and Prevention also uploaded a gene sequence for collecting samples completed on January 1, 2020.

According to the Hubei Daily, on December 30, Zhang Dingyu, the president of Jinyintan Hospital, led everyone to collect bronchoalveolar lavage fluid from the 7 patients admitted by the hospital and sent them to the Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences. Check it out.

Based on the industry's average detection cycle of three days, by January 2nd, the genetic sequencing results of the above-mentioned eight samples collected on December 30th should have been obtained. In an open letter from Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Wuhan Institute of Virology fully carried out scientific research on the new crown virus pneumonia, it was stated that on the evening of December 30, the virus received an unknown pneumonia sample from Jinyintan Hospital on the evening of December 30. The whole genome sequence of the new crown virus was determined on January 2 and uploaded to GISAID on January 11.

The above-mentioned paper published in the "Chinese Medical Journal (English version)" also shows that in the nine days from December 24, 2019 to January 1, 2020, five patients' alveolar lavage fluid samples were collected and sent for testing. Analysis, and two of these five patients had no history of contact with the South China Seafood Market.

Of the five patients, in addition to the 65-year-old patient samples, three patients were collected on December 30, 2019. Among them, Patient No. 2 was a 49-year-old female who worked in the South China Seafood Market. She started to have a high fever and a dry cough on December 22. She developed dyspnea after five days and was hospitalized. She was admitted to the ICU on December 29. Patient No. 3 was also Female, 52 years old, onset on December 22, was hospitalized on the 29th, but she has no history of contact with the seafood market; Patient No. 4 is a 41-year-old male. He started to have a high fever, dry cough on December 16, and was hospitalized on the 22nd-this There is no history of seafood market exposure. The man is obviously the Wuchang accountant who was treated at the Wuhan Central Hospital above. The sample of alveolar lavage fluid from patient No. 5 was collected on January 1, 2020. He is a member of the South China Seafood Market. A 61-year-old man at work. He suffered from chronic liver disease and abdominal myxoma. He had fever, cough, and dyspnea for seven days. He was admitted to a local hospital. He started to use ECMO for rescue on January 2 and died.

According to the paper, a new coronavirus was identified in the laboratory in this way. It has 79% similarity to the nucleotide sequence of SARS virus. It is phylogenetically closest to the SARS-like coronavirus carried by bats, but forms Coronavirus beta strain sequence of a single evolutionary branch. After carrying out virus isolation, morphological confirmation and serological testing, the new pathogen was confirmed to be a new coronavirus. The amino acid sequence of this virus-receptor binding domain is similar to that of SARS coronavirus, indicating that the two viruses may bind to the same receptor on human cells.

Looking back on the days from the end of December 2019 to the beginning of January this year, it should have been a crucial moment in determining the fate of countless people. But at that time, the public did not know the consequences of the virus in the future.

A source from a gene sequencing company revealed that on January 1, 2020, he received a phone call from an official of the Health and Health Commission of Hubei Province, informing him that samples of cases of new coronary pneumonia in Wuhan could not be re-examined; existing cases were It must be destroyed, sample information cannot be disclosed, and related papers and related data cannot be released to the public. "If you detect it in the future, you must report to us."

On January 3, the General Office of the National Health and Medical Commission issued a "Notice on Strengthening the Management of Biological Sample Resources and Related Scientific Research Activities in the Prevention and Control of Major Outbreak Infectious Diseases." (2020) No. 3 states that according to the recent samples of Wuhan pneumonia cases, based on the current knowledge of pathogenic characteristics, transmission, pathogenicity, clinical data and other information, before further clarifying the pathogenic information, temporarily follow the highly pathogenic pathogenic microorganisms. (Second category) For management, the transportation of relevant samples should be in accordance with the requirements of the “Ministry of Health ’s Highly Pathogenic Pathogenic Microorganism Bacteria (Poison) Species or Samples Transport Management Regulations”; the pathogen-related experimental activities Development of a biological safety laboratory of protection level.

Document No. 3 further stipulates that all relevant institutions shall provide biological samples to designated pathogen detection institutions to conduct pathogenic testing and complete the transfer procedures in accordance with the requirements of health and health administrative departments at or above the provincial level; Provide biological samples and related information; Institutions and individuals who have obtained biological samples of relevant cases from relevant medical and health institutions should immediately destroy the samples in situ or send them to the depository designated by the state for safekeeping, and properly keep relevant experimental activity records and experiments Result information; during the epidemic prevention and control work, the information generated by various types of institutions undertaking pathogenic testing tasks is a special public resource. No institution or individual may publish information about the results of pathogenic testing or experimental activities without authorization. Approved by the entrusted department.

As for which agencies are "designated pathogen detection agencies", the document did not mention them. Some virologists revealed that even the Wuhan Institute of Virology of the Chinese Academy of Sciences was once required to stop pathogen detection and destroy existing samples. "Because of the current" Infectious Disease Prevention and Control Law ", laboratory testing, diagnosis and pathogenic identification of infectious diseases are at all levels. The statutory responsibilities of disease prevention and control institutions, only national and provincial disease control system institutions have the right to conduct infectious disease etiology identification. Obviously, Wuhan Institute of Virology, Chinese Academy of Sciences is not in this category, let alone those unauthorized commercial scientific research institutions. "

Perhaps because of this, the Chinese Academy of Sciences Institute of Virology, which received the virus samples on December 30, performed virus isolation on January 1, 2020, completed the virus gene sequencing on January 2, and isolated the virus strain on January 5. The national virus resource library was put into storage and standardized preservation was completed on the 9th. These apparently day-to-day research work has not been announced to the public. Only in February when faced with rumors and attacks from the outside world, a word-only disclosure was given.

On January 9th, CCTV reported that the “Wuhan Viral Pneumonia Pathogen Test Preliminary Evaluation Expert Group”, mainly based on the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, determined that the pathogen was a new type of coronavirus. “As of January 21, 2020, the laboratory A new type of coronavirus was detected, and the whole genome sequence of the virus was obtained. A total of 15 cases of positive results of the new type of coronavirus were detected by nucleic acid detection method. The virus was isolated from a positive patient sample, and the typical coronavirus appeared under an electron microscope form."

On January 11, Zhang Yongzhen's research team shared the viral genome sequence information on Virologic.org website and GenBank, the first team in the world to publish the viral sequence.

On the evening of the same day, the National Health Commission announced that China would share the sequence information of the new crown virus gene with WHO. The next day, five other viral genome sequences from different patients were released by a group led by the National Health Commission on the global shared influenza virus database GISAID. For which agency did the new coronavirus gene sequence information shared with WHO come from? Gao Fu, director of the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, responded to Caixin reporters that the gene sequences came from tripartite institutions, the China Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the Chinese Academy of Medical Sciences and the Chinese Academy of Sciences. This is a joint research project. The WHO says it has obtained more detailed information on unexplained viral pneumonia in Wuhan from the National Health Commission of China, including information on the sequence of novel coronavirus genes detected in cases, which is important for the development of specific diagnostic tools in other countries significance.

At this point, it is not necessary to go into who first picked the pearl on the crown of science, because 15 days have passed since the first case of genetic sequencing confirmed the new crown virus.

On January 11th, the Wuhan Health and Health Commission stopped updating for several days, and for the first time renamed "viral pneumonia of unknown cause" to "new coronavirus-infected pneumonia", saying that as of 14:00 on January 10, 2020, Initial diagnosis of 41 cases of new coronary pneumonia. On the same day, the "two sessions" of Hubei were held. Until the end of the "two sessions" in Hubei on January 17, this number has not increased.

Cai Xin reporter Zhao Jinzhao and intern reporter Huang Yuxin also contributed to this article.

This article is free for a limited time. Thanks to the enthusiastic readers for subscribing to Caixintong and supporting journalists to explore the truth on the front line! Become a member of Caixintong and read the Caixin website !

For more details, please refer to: [Feature] Full Record of Epidemic Prevention of New Coronary Pneumonia (Live Update)

Wednesday, 11 March 2020

Wikipedia deletes The List of Scientists who are Skeptics of the sacred (fake) “Consensus”

Wikipedia deletes The List of Scientists who are Skeptics of the sacred (fake) “Consensus”

The evidence is overwhelming but the names of 85 unconvinced experts threatens the Earth. Shield your eyes, sinner, lest ye faith be tested!

The Religion of  Carbonoid-Weather-Control is so fragile, and Wikipedia so captured by philosophical fruit flies, that 35 editors voted down 19 other editors and now The List does not exist. Thus do 35 editors keep safe the minds of Wikipedia babes who might get confused when they see Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencers names and mistake them for actual climate scientists… oh.

Thanks to Dr Roger Higgs:

Electroverse: Wikipedia deletes scientists who disagree…

Here’s the reasoning for the censorship given by one of the Wiki editors:

“The result was delete. This is because I see a consensus here that there is no value in having a list that combines the qualities of a) being a scientist, in the general sense of that word, and b) disagreeing with the scientific consensus on global warming.”

Wikipedia

I’d like to thank those 35 Wiki editors for telling the world how weak the consensus is and giving skeptics another excuse to highlight this dangerous list. Go Streisand Effect.

Cap Allon at Electroverse captured the Wikipedia list. So have Fandom. KEEP!KEEP!KEEP! Those listed are not noteworthy? “Any utility it ever had is long past?” It’s a list of cranks? Absolute rubbish. There are 4 explicit criteria for inclusion. 1) the individual must have published at least one peer-reviewed research article in the broad field of natural sciences; 2) he or she must have made a clear statement disagreeing with one or more of the IPCC Third Report’s three main conclusions, and 3) the scientists has to have been described in reliable sources as a climate skeptic, denier, or in disagreement with any of the three main conclusions. Additionally, to ensure notability, only individuals with a wikipedia article can be included. Someone advocating for deletion, if the article is a mishmash of miscreants . . . I DARE YOU TO STOP BEING INTELLECTUALLY LAZY!

Dr Roger Higgs notes:

By the way, note three BBC-style disingenuous omissions in the title alone: “List of scientists who disagree with the scientific consensus on global warming”:

(1) these are not just any scientists, but well-known and, in many cases, distinguished scientists (Happer, Soon, Lindzen, etc, etc; see below), in diverse fields of science;

(2) they disagree with the consensus on man-made global warming (no educated person denies global warming; Earth has always alternately warmed and cooled);

(3) the consensus is only among climate scientists (whose salaries, research grants, and reputations depend on public belief in man-made warming).

Time to share far and wide. If Wikipedia is serious they have to kick out the editors with political or religious bias.

Dr Roger Higgs, by the way has published: 29 bullet points prove global warming by the sun, not CO2: by a GEOLOGIST for a change

h/t Viv Forbes CarbonSense, Bill and George

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING IS PRIMARILY CAUSED BY NATURAL PROCESSES

— scientists that have called the observed warming attributable to natural causes, i.e. the high solar activity witnessed over the last few decades.

SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN

SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES

DECEASED SCIENTISTS

— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.5/10 (96 votes cast)
Wikipedia deletes The List of Scientists who are Skeptics of the sacred (fake) "Consensus", 9.5 out of 10 based on 96 ratings

104 comments to Wikipedia deletes The List of Scientists who are Skeptics of the sacred (fake) “Consensus”

  • #
    Richard Ilfeld

    Wikipedia has become the citizens band radio of encyclopediae. Gresham’s Law applied to information. 10-4 good buddies, and don’t let the door bang you in the butt on the way out.

    120

  • #
    Ljh

    Thank you, everyone who placed integrity ahead of groupthink, career advancement and service to the globalists powergrabbers!

    230

  • #
    Curious George

    I see a consensus here not to contribute money to Wikipedia. Until it changes its ways. What was the name of a comrade who made thousands of edits to promote Global Warming hysteria?

    270

  • #

    It would be very refreshing if more people with science degrees exhibited signs of intelligence.

    The correct answer is that no one knows what percentage of warming since 1975 had natural causes and what percentage had man made causes.

    I have a BS science degree — I declare the right answer is “No one knows” !

    What is so hard about admitting that ?

    Even more important is determining whether past global warming has been bad news or good news,

    To continue picking on people with science degrees, I declare that the warming in the past 300 years has been good news, and no one was hurt by it.

    That seems like common sense to me.

    II’m wrong, the proof would be a list of the names of people actually hurt by the mild, intermittent global warming since the 1690s during the Maunder Minimum / Little Ice Age.

    Jumping to the conclusion that global warming is 100% (or close to 100%) caused by humans, and is an existential threat, is like a cult belief, or a secular religion.

    Attacking people who do not share that belief is even worse than having that belief in the first place.

    The coming climate crisis has been predicted since the late 1950s — especially in the past 30 years — yet the climate keeps getting better and better.

    No one with sense would listen to any climate predictions.

    Yet almost all leftists do listen, and believe.

    410

    • #
      John

      Wikipedia can be edited by anyone, and so for anything that is politically controversial you can expect a left-wing politically-correct slant. Think an encyclopaedia written by ABC journalists.

      160

      • #
        Another Ian

        An excellent reason for ignoring their begging messages IMO

        80

      • #
        sophocles

        John!

        Think an encyclopaedia written by ABC journalists.

        — with “Gate Keepers” to prevent any reinstatement.
        Urk — that’s the stuff of nightmares. Terrible! Wikipedia already has a bad reputation, that would destroy it completely. The ABC’s junk-journos think homo sapiens sapiens is headed for extinction if their Klimate Change myth goes past 1.5 °C.

        ROTFL.

        It takes a global geomagnetic excursion like the Gothenburg (12,000 YA) and the Laschamp (41,000) to bring large fauna to extinction. We’re heading into another GME at present so we will see.

        Capture a list of the names of those who voted to remove and delete the page. When the cooling is obvious, we can create a page in their (dis)-honour and laugh at them — collectively and individually.

        It’s already begun about the North Atlantic coastlines.
        https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/12/arctic-sea-ice-sees-dramatic-recovery-and-expansion-northern-europe-january-cooling-30-years/

        Even the ice-breakers are having trouble:
        https://notrickszone.com/2020/02/26/exchange-of-arctic-research-crew-gets-delayed-as-supply-ice-breaker-blocked-by-unexpected-dense-sea-ice/

        but one or two winters does not a trend make, although the greed with which warmists welcome any warmer Arctic summers, one wouldn’t think so.

        The next lot of Wikipedia begging letters/pages should appear in late 2027 and over 2028 when the world economy has collapsed into yet another Davos-organized/inspired recession. (They appear every recession.) This assumes the Covid-19 epidemic is not going to lengthen the minor recession — also Davos organized — of the previous two years.

        30

    • #
      John

      I agree. We don’t really know the answer. We don’t even know how much it’s warmed because the warmists have tampered with the records. Then the question is how much of it’s natural. And perhaps more importantly does it even matter if it warms.

      But no, there’s no time to split hairs over questions like that, is there? This is a CRISIS! We must immediately abandon this civilisation of ours.

      30

  • #

    I consider the list to be those who are smart enough to see through the IPCC’s misplaced hubris conferring upon itself the legitimacy to replace the laws of science with conformance to a political narrative.

    250

    • #
      nb

      aka heretics.
      The most accurate way of thinking about the agw crowd is as a religion. Within that construct, some are genuine true believers, others cynical opportunists.

      130

  • #
  • #
    Lance

    They must have seen the video:

    “The video to send to everyone citing the ‘97% scientist consensus’ on climate change”

    https://noqreport.com/2020/03/06/the-video-to-send-to-everyone-citing-the-97-scientist-consensus-on-climate-change/

    90

    • #
      Serp

      Comprehensive job summarized neatly at 13:57 when we hear “all this talk of a ninety-seven percent consensus amounts to a dishonest bullying campaign to stifle scientific debate just when we need it most because the question looms so large in public policy”.

      Hands up those who think we’ll beat the money men.

      40

  • #
    Reed Coray

    Does anyone else smell Wikipedia’s fear? One principle common to religions is you excommunicate people who might weaken the faith of true believers. It’s time the global warming religion developed a secret handshake to identify true believers. Or they could go the other way, insist all non-believers wear something attached to an article of clothing.

    200

  • #

    OT but breaking news:
    “A Warming Climate is Implicated in Australian Wildfires”

    https://insideclimatenews.org/news/04032020/warming-climate-implicated-australian-wildfires-new-study-finds?utm_source=InsideClimate+News&utm_campaign=658c3d5e1c-&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_29c928ffb5-658c3d5e1c-327531733

    I’m surprised it took the AGW attribution nuts this long. There is a link to the study in the news report.

    I will repost this on the next unthreaded post.

    110

    • #
      Dennis

      In or around 1990 the Australian Federal Government signed the UN Agenda 21 – Sustainability. It is now called Agenda 30. State Governments in Australia are responsible for public land, resources in the ground, water supplies etc. The State governments control and are responsible for more national governance than the Federal Government.

      Many State forests were renamed National Parks, in NSW for example public land and rivers that had been listed for new dams were locked up (for future generations) and the dam construction plans abandoned. Sustainable logging was no longer permitted and of course mining was banned, no gas extraction. One of the largest shale oil and gas deposits is now within a National Park in NSW near Lithgow west of Sydney.

      Under the control of the State controlled National Parks and Wildlife Service National Parks have been poorly managed and fire trails blocked and closed, fire hazard material has not been well managed and undergrowth allowed to become a tangled mess with fallen timber and leaves building up for decades. Token clearing including back burning has been carried out but nowhere near what was/is needed. Private land owners have not been issued with enough or no permits for removing hazard material and creating fire breaks.

      The poor management of forests and other land coupled to a severe drought, Australia being the land of droughts and flooding rains, a drying climate from about 130,000 years ago when the rainforests began to retreat and be replaced by eucalypts that tolerate droughts, rainforest today about 3 per cent of forests here in Australia, is without doubt the reason why 2019-2020 bushfire season wild fires took place. And noting that the fires were severe but the areas burnt are not the largest bushfire season areas compared to what has burnt burnt in the past.

      It is worth noting that the climate change hoaxers were well aware that natural conditions and lack of land care had the potential for wild fires in 2019-2020, in fact the NSW Rural Fire Service was worried about this before the 2018-2019 bushfire season. State Emergency Services prepared and the State and Federal governments contributed to increased RFS funding which even included purchase of a Boeing 737 tanker-fire bomber aircraft. Additional charter aircraft were added to Fire Aviation assets. The hoaxers via the not government organisation Climate Council (Tim Flannery) prepared a stunt to push their climate emergency propaganda and a group of Council members, former fire commissioners, briefed the media that they had asked to meet with the Prime Minister to warn about the 2019-2020 bushfire season dangers. But the NSW RFS had been prepared much earlier for the 2018-2019 bushfire season and were already well prepared for 2019-2020. The State Budget for both financial years had been increased for the RFS. And the Prime Minister and Federal Government are not responsible for bushfire fighting and other emergency services, as former fire commissioners would know.

      The man made global warming caused by CO2 stunts are intolerable.

      240

      • #
        Graeme#4

        An excellent summary Dennis. Burning off only 1.7% of eucalypt forest every year means that the litter builds up to unmanageable levels, resulting in uncontrollable bushfires.

        40

    • #
      TomRude

      These guys always find a link… through statistical methods using the global temperature that has already erased any historical precedents. This looks like science but this is fake biased propaganda.

      60

  • #
    Kalm Keith

    The core issue claimed as the basis for all of this “social control” has been propagated in the face of scientific truth.

    Those scientists formerly listed on Wikipedia were predominantly specialists in physics or geology and eminently more qualified than those coming from the more generalist Climate Science university courses.

    Those Wikipedia rejects knew that CO2 couldn’t act in the manner proposed by the UNIPCCC because of very basic scientific imperatives.

    The only point that needs emphasising about CO2 “IF” it selectively absorbed ground origin IR once above ground, is this: It cannot hold onto or trap that “heat”.

    Equilibration with surrounding “air” molecules must be immediate, this gives rise to warming and consequent expansion of the parcel of atmosphere involved, which leads to vertical movement of that parcel: convection.

    The moving parcel will rise until it reaches surrounding air at the same level of internal energy aka the same temperature.

    Given that in this scenario it is obvious that the temperature of the gas parcel is in a process of reduction, it is ridiculous to suggest that stored “photons” are going to be sprayed towards the ground to cause any amount of the magical “Global Warming”.

    KK

    http://joannenova.com.au/2020/02/thursday-open-thread-2/#comment-2283171

    130

    • #

      First of all, there will be no convection if the parcels of air above your parcel are also warmed. Given that CO2 is well mixed this should happen if CO2 is increased.

      Second, if the energy in the air is increased, this should cause the GH molecules therein to spray more photons toward the ground. The captured photons are not stored. What is stored, if you want to call it that, is the energy from the photons that goes into the air. It is stored until it generates new photons, some of which go back to the surface.

      The real question is why the increased CO2 has not generated any warming? It is a very good question.

      41

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        David,

        I presume that the GH you mentioned stands for Ground Hog.

        As to the rest of of it, do you actually understand what you have written?

        Stock phrases like “CO2 is well mixed” need to be handled with caution as they may be covering for something?

        There are measurements taken above crop fields that record variations in CO2 going from the usual to 1250 ppm during the night.

        David, you have criticised points in my posts before with similar comment that shows cracks appearing.

        Speaking from authority is a dangerous practice.

        KK

        30

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        David, apart from the other stuff:

        there’s no such thing as a “photon”.

        It’s an imaginary concept developed alongside wave theory that’s used in theoretical physics to describe various aspects of energy in atoms.

        Could you please clarify what you have written?

        That would be helpful.

        KK

        00

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        It seems, once again that I have been immoderate.

        00

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        In moderation seemingly for trying to get this clarified or interpreted.

        “First of all, there will be no convection if the parcels of air above your parcel are also warmed. Given that CO2 is well mixed this should happen if CO2 is increased.”

        ?

        KK

        00

    • #
      sophocles

      Both of you should read Drotos et al
      https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/16000870.2019.1699387
      Global variability in Radiative-Convective Equilibrium with a slab ocean under a wide range of CO2 concentrations

      I’ve given it a skim read and it’s quite interesting: as CO2 concentration rises, the atmosphere cools, not warms. The paper is about long simulations run with a climate model — I was not able to determine which one (other than it could be at the Max Planck Institute and the cloud treatment could mean CMIP5 or CMIP6). It seems that according to the model, more CO2 in the atmosphere may incur quite strong cooling

      Umm. So even the models don’t think the science is … umm … settled. :-)

      I’ll quote the Notrickszone article’s blurb — it’s what tempted me to download the paper and my skim has set me up for some serious reading.

      From Notrickszone.com:

      Earlier this year, scientists published a paper using mesocosms (controlled outdoor experiments) to demonstrate CO2 concentrations of 3200, 7500, and 16,900 ppm are associated with colder temperatures than in outdoor environments with 480 ppm CO2 concentrations.

      Now, in another new paper (Drotos et al., 2020), several more scientists are asserting the Earth system has an internal, self-amplifying negative cloud feedback mechanism so powerful that

      “at CO2 concentrations beyond four times the preindustrial value, the climate sensitivity decreases to nearly zero as a result of episodic global cooling events as large as 10 K”.

      Wunderkind!

      The CO2 concentrations are still too high but Planet Earth sure ain’t gonna catch fire.
      Enjoy.

      10

      • #
        Kalm Keith

        Hi Sophocles, my comment was about the capacity of the existing CO2 in the atmosphere to do the global warming thing and absorb and store “heat” that could be pinged back to Earth.
        The actual levels of CO2 weren’t involved as such.

        The main point is that the energy held by CO2 is controlled by the surrounding atmosphere which adjusts its temperature by convection.

        KK

        10

  • #
  • #
    Sommer

    https://medium.com/@helen.buyniski/wikipedia-rotten-to-the-core-dcc435781c45

    “Wikipedia may have begun life as an open-source utopia of free knowledge, but it has devolved into a repressive oligarchy run by unaccountable petty tyrants. It is a punitive system that targets those who refuse to toe the line.”https://medium.com/@helen.buyniski/wikipedia-rotten-to-the-core-dcc435781c45

    170

  • #
    Yonniestone

    Going by Wikipedia’s history deleting reasoning they should also have no mention of,

    Francis Galton (February 16, 1822)
    Moses Harman (October 12, 1830)
    Allan W. Thurman (1847)
    Alexander Graham Bell (March 3, 1847)
    Lucien Howe (September 18, 1848)
    David Starr Jordan (January 19, 1851)
    John Harvey Kellogg (February 26, 1852)
    Henry Fairfield Osborn (August 8, 1857)
    Sigard Adolphus Knopf (November 27, 1857)
    Leonard Darwin (January 15, 1850)
    John Harvey Kellogg (February 26, 1852)
    Luther Emmett Holt (March 4, 1855)
    E. S. Gosney (November 6, 1855)
    George Bernard Shaw (July 26, 1856)
    Charles Fremont Dight (1856)
    Clarence Darrow ( April 18, 1857)[1]
    Theodore Roosevelt (October 27, 1858)
    Havelock Ellis (February 2, 1859)
    Sidney Webb 1st Baron Passfield (July 13, 1859)
    Alice Lee Moqué (October 20, 1861)
    Stewart Paton (April 19, 1865)
    Edward Alsworth Ross (December 12, 1866)
    Robert Andrews Millikan (March 22, 1868)
    Albert Johnson (March 5, 1869) – congressman
    John Campbell Merriam (October 20, 1869)
    Katherine Bement Davis (January 15, 1860)
    Robert Latou Dickinson (1861)
    Harry Chandler (May 17, 1864)
    Madison Grant (November 19, 1865)
    Charles Davenport (June 1, 1866)
    Joseph DeJarnette (September 29, 1866)
    Gertrude Crotty Davenport (June 1, 1866)
    Henry H. Goddard (August 14, 1866)
    Irving Fisher (February 27, 1867)
    William E. Castle (October 25, 1867)
    Robert DeCourcy Ward (November 29, 1867)
    Samuel Jackson Holmes (March 7, 1868)
    Prescott F. Hall (September 27, 1868)
    H. G. Wells (September 21, 1866)[2]
    W. E. B. Du Bois (February 23, 1868)[3]
    Robert Andrews Millikan (March 22, 1868)[4]
    Harry J. Haiselden (March 16, 1870)
    Roswell Hill Johnson (1877)
    Henry Farnham Perkins (1877)
    William Lawrence Tower (1872)
    Edward Thorndike (August 31, 1874)
    Robert Yerkes (May 26, 1876)
    Elmer Ernest Southard (July 28, 1876)
    Lewis Terman (January 15, 1877)
    Aaron Rosanoff (June 26, 1878)
    Charles Goethe (March 28, 1875)
    Irénée du Pont (December 21, 1876)
    Alexis Carrel (June 28, 1873)
    Herbert Hoover (August 10, 1874)
    Winston Churchill (November 30, 1874)[5]
    Margaret Sanger (September 14, 1879)[6][7]
    Helen Keller (June 27, 1880)
    Marie Stopes (October 15, 1880)[8][9]
    Harry H. Laughlin (March 11, 1880)
    Ivey Foreman Lewis (August 31, 1882)
    Paul Popenoe (October 16, 1888)
    William Gordon Lennox (1884)
    Frederick Osborn (March 21, 1889)
    Anna Blount (c. 1880) – physician
    Henry S. Huntington (1882)
    Lothrop Stoddard (June 29, 1883)
    Stephen Sargent Visher (1887)
    John Maynard Keynes (June 5, 1883)
    Charles Galton Darwin (December 18, 1887)
    Wickliffe Draper (August 9, 1891)
    Norman Haire (January 21, 1892)
    Carlos Blacker (December 8, 1895)
    Alan Frank Guttmacher (May 19, 1898) – vice-president of the American Eugenics Society
    Hermann Joseph Muller (December 21, 1890)
    Madge Macklin (February 6, 1893)
    Elmer Pendell (1894)
    William Herbert Sheldon (November 19, 1898)
    Benjamin D. Wood (November 10, 1894)
    Morris Steggerda (September 1, 1900)
    Linus Pauling (February 28, 1901)[10]
    Charles Lindbergh (February 4, 1902)[11]
    Harry L. Shapiro (March 19, 1902)
    Joseph Fletcher (April 10, 1905)
    Robert Klark Graham (June 9, 1906)
    William Shockley (February 13, 1910)
    Nathaniel Weyl (July 20, 1910)
    Seymour Itzkoff (1928)
    William Luther Pierce (September 11, 1933)
    John Glad (December 31, 1941)
    James L. Hart (1944)
    Adolf Hitler.
    Plato.

    All these people supported or were involved with the Eugenics movement from the late 19th century to the mid 20th century, this unproven scientific belief system affected global events from immigration, elections, world wars, genocide, government testing on citizens, sterilisation programs, feminist movement, learning institutions and religions.

    I suggest Wikipedia actually reads its history pages before they delete them and look up George Santayana who gave a nice little quote about forgetting history.

    110

  • #
    Bill In Oz

    Climate scientist heroes every one of them !
    Can the blog award a special
    Freeman Dyson Stamp
    To each & every one of them ?

    80

  • #
  • #

    [...] UPDATE UPDATE  READ ALL ABOUT IT! Jo Nova reports that 26 Wikipedia editors have voted to delete the list of scientists who dissent from the so [...]

    30

  • #
    RickWill

    Wikipedia requires voluntary contributions to keep its servers alive. It has to play politics to keep the funding coming. The pro CAGW have their funding source to protect by spinning their fairy tale. Consequently they will not support any source that presents reality. They are a powerful lobby because they support big government.

    I stopped my contributions when I saw how Wikipedia describes Anthony Watt and WUWT:

    Willard Anthony Watts (born 1958) is an American blogger who runs Watts Up With That?, a popular climate change denial blog that opposes the scientific consensus on climate change.

    Words “denial” and “consensus” are anti-science, displaying Wikipedia’s lack of intelligent input. Wikipedia is no more than social media for the left inclined.

    200

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Heres the thing…cults that go of the rails crash and burn. No ine believes the CAGW narrative any more, which is why the adherents to that religion are becoming more and more shrill and running around in ever decreasing circles while shrieking.

      They have become a rather cautionary tale of a failed trojan horse. In the end they will be left holding a paper vag of the dog poop called CAGW and wondering what to do with it.

      Sad really…all that wasted money…we could have done some real good with it.

      111

      • #
        WXcycles

        The sad thing Steve is there was this fresh ideal of having a genuine free open and objective non-slanted a-political encyclopedia of all knowledge on topics available to everyone anywhere.

        That is gone, they have failed.

        70

      • #
        sophocles

        … that’s part and parcel of the human condition.

        Propaganda is propaganda. It’s starting to cool but barely. We’ll be able to throw stones soon … not soon enough for me, but soon.

        10

    • #
      Another Ian

      ” Wikipedia is no more than social media for the left inclined behind”?

      30

  • #
    Aussie Pete

    The only thing George Orwell got wrong was the date.

    110

  • #

    The Warmistas are constantly gripped by the fear that the truth will emerge and the falsity of their Global Warming Meme will be exposed. They constantly take steps to avoid debate, silence all opposition and deny it any forum. The Wikipedia deletions are another sign of this. Warmism is now nothing more than a cheap religion with no science attached, dragooning its followers into line against a growing scepticism. This like all intolerant religions excommunicates non-believers who might enlighten or weaken the faith of the true believers.

    120

    • #
      Dennis

      Yesterday a 40 year old builder and younger Veterinary Surgeon commented that they are fed up with all the “BS” extremism and that most people are.

      A good sign I thought.

      80

  • #
  • #
    Rollo

    Bjorn Lomborg is alive and well on Wikipedia even though he is totally uncompromising when attacking the mitigations being pushed by the acolytes. He never discusses or even questions the so called science of global warming. Perhaps his acquiescence to the dogma is feigned so he can get his message out,unlike those who admit to scepticism.

    60

  • #
    tom0mason

    Welcome to the NWO and your freedom …

    Next we shall remove these offensive images and painting from every location, we shall remove their statues lest people remember them, editors shall scour the pages of every newspaper, periodical, and book excising even the slightest hint of them. Our history will be a clean history, a history of social peace, of cooperation.
    No reference shall, from this day on, be made of wars, slavery, atrocities, or hardships of any kind. People will read only the truth in history and see what kind, compassionate, civil, and social we have been and will always be.

    60

  • #
  • #
    el gordo

    Talking of Roy Spencer, he is an honest broker.

    https://www.drroyspencer.com/wp-content/uploads/UAH_LT_1979_thru_February_2020_v6.jpg

    Why exactly are temperatures so high in the absence of El Nino?

    If the GBR bleaches in the next few weeks, surely we should raise the white flag?

    40

    • #
      robert rosicka

      ABC were banging on about bleaching on the GBR last week el gordo.

      40

    • #
      WXcycles

      Unlikely to be serious Gordo, it hasn’t been hot for long enough to get serious bleaching. A mild and enjoyable summer until the 2nd week of Feb then got calm and hot for about 3 weeks (hot SSTA east of NZ did that). Things are cooling now, more thunderstorms and cloud cover this week, plus a Low is forecast to become a Cat-2 as it goes SSE just east coast during the coming week. That will stir the water layers and currents and reduce heat stress (which is already dropping). If there’s shallow water bleaching on the GBR it won’t be much. Of course the ABC and other climate-clowns will pitch their circus tent and have a field day over not much.

      60

      • #
        el gordo

        Okay, so you are saying when the low in the Gulf settles over Cape York it will turn into a TC named Gretel. As a consequence GBR bleaching won’t happen because of the extra cloud cover?

        40

        • #
          Bill In Oz

          GBR bleaching is a normal part of the GBR’s life cycle !

          30

        • #
          WXcycles

          No, the cloud cover is there right now, it’s been present and increasing for a few days, as storms and showers increased. See here for the present cloud conditions, plus onshore flow, with a SE surge coming up the coast:

          Cloud right now:
          https://i.ibb.co/KrC0K6k/Screenshot-2020-03-08-Windy-as-forecasted.png

          https://on.windy.com/3ek7h

          If you watch the cloud sequence link over the next ten days you’ll notice low cloud covers the reef almost the entire period from midnight last night, with increasing rain showers to cool and dilute the warmer surface waters, plus the implied currents from the wind map and the waves maps. Any tendency to bleach is ending now.

          If you look at the Pressure map as the cyclone pulls more towards NZ there’s a Tasman High with a strong Low pressure gradient combining to send cooler winds and showers north over the GBR after the Low/cyclone passes. There are actually two ‘cyclonic’ centers within an elongated NNW to SSE trough forecast for the 14th, but a lot of cloud and rain building from right now until then. Note that there is a High in the Bight moving eastward against a complex ECL forming in the Tasman, all helping to throw much cooler flow into the tropic towards end of next week. Indeed the temps in the SE states will definitely be getting cooler from this. Snow in Tasmania.

          Pressure
          https://on.windy.com/3ek82

          In effect, Summer’s heat finished late Friday evening just gone, with lots of coastal and GBR storms which continued into yesterday over the reef. It’s very unlikely to get that level of heat to resume after this ‘cyclone’ blows past, so the cooling will likely continue into April.

          Frankly I doubt it can form a cyclone, too trough like, but BOM will name one anyway.

          50

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    I did not think, and this is from past comments, that anyone on this blog felt that wikipedia was a source of truth. Now, suddenly it is?

    32

    • #
      Graeme#4

      I still use Wikipedia for additional technical insights of subjects that I’m not familiar with, so I believe that it still serves a useful purpose. However, after seeing the efforts of Connelly and his editing, I ignore all Wikipedia CC and AG2 articles.

      60

    • #
      Lance

      Wikipedia is NOT a source of “truth”.

      It is a reference for Facts and an Echo Chamber of Propaganda.

      One must be totally aware that WikiPedia has allowed ideology to infect any political aspect of any subject.

      Fact differs from “truth”, sad to say.

      Truth is in the mind of the believer.
      Fact is in the proof of the claimant and the critical mind of the evaluator.

      41

    • #
      AndyG55

      “Now, suddenly it is?”

      Wrong again.

      Why is it always so ?

      51

    • #
      sophocles

      PF: don’t rely on anything on Wikipedia you can’t fully verify from other solid and reliable sources.

      Anything to do with climate on Wikipedia has been unreliable for many years because of the AGW religion.
      and book burners like William Connolley et al (a CAGW Believer). In many other areas, it’s OK but that’s about all which can be said. I accept Wikipedia when it agrees with books in my personal library.

      20

  • #
    WXcycles

    Wikipedia is now ‘The Guardian’ version of an online ‘Encyclopedia’? That’s where I draw the line. I need a compendium of knowledge that’s actually a compendium of knowledge. I’m setting my browsers and search engine to exclude Wikipedia pages and search results.

    Online, censorship is a double-edged sword, cuts both ways.

    80

    • #
      WXcycles

      Done!

      BlockSite
      (Firefox)
      BlockSite is an extension, which automatically blocks websites of your choice. Additionally, this extension will disable all hyperlinks to these websites, by just displaying the link text without the clicking functionality.
      https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/blocksite/

      Site Blocker (Chrome-based Browsers)
      Overview – Site Blocker is a productivity tool that denies an access to websites permanently or by schedule. Close waste websites for yourself or protect your children from nasty content. Use the net safely on blocking all websites from unwanted category.
      https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/site-blocker/oohkinmgbkhgcobnipoijafcjgfcogpk

      Unfortunately it’s not currently possible to filter out Wikipedia pages from DuckDuckGo’s search results, as they don’t exclude specific sites. Hopefully that they will make a preset site blocking list option within the personal search settings soon.
      https://stackoverflow.com/questions/18079649/block-a-site-from-search-engine-duckduckgo

      Note:There are several other site blockers available for each major browser.

      50

      • #
        WXcycles

        One thing about setting these …

        The Chome extension works fine as soon as you install it, you just set it to block Wikipedia.org and it blocks all Wikipedia pages from then on.

        But ‘BlockSite’ for Firefox does not block a simply as that, it blocks only specific URLs. But it does have an option in the settings to block any word within a URL so just enter wikipedia in there (it ignores CAPS in this word so lower case is fine), and it will then block 100% of Wikipedia pages.

        70

  • #
    pat

    cancelculture at work again. it has a history, longer than usually acknowledged (Daly may not have been a “climate scientist”, but he was most definitely a CAGW sceptic):

    24 Nov 2009: Examiner Tasmania: Climate change email cowardly: widow
    by ZOE EDWARDS
    A “COWARDLY” email has forced Hadspen woman Amy Daly to relive the tragic death of her climate-change sceptic husband.
    Mrs Daly said yesterday that the email, made public by computer hackers, had only made her more determined to spread her late husband’s message.
    It was written by the head of Britain’s Climatic Research Unit Phil Jones, who wrote to a colleague that the death of John Daly was “cheering news”…

    “It’s such a cowardly thing to do,” Mrs Daly said of the email.
    “John never ever did anything like that – he stuck to the scientific things, he stuck to the debate.”
    Mrs Daly said her grandson told her about the email, which had devastated her whole family.
    “It’s a big blow to him, it’s a big blow to my daughters,” she said.

    She said she would not try to contact Professor Jones.
    “If he says such things about John then obviously he had a fear of John – he thought he didn’t have enough scientific knowledge to challenge it so he had to do something as nasty as that.”
    The Guardian newspaper reported that Professor Jones refused to comment on whether the leaked emails were genuine…

    Professor Jones and Mr Daly met in 2001, when the scientist demanded the then-58-year-old remove an article from his website that questioned the quality of his research.
    Mr Daly refused, simply answering “no”…

    Mrs Daly vowed to maintain her late husband’s website, saying it was important to maintain debate.
    “The last thing I want is to lose all the work John did,” she said.
    “He spent 15 years doing it.
    “Also, it’s important that climate change should be proved.”
    https://www.examiner.com.au/story/488452/climate-change-email-cowardly-widow/

    St‎ill waiting for Greenhouse – John Daly
    After several requests by visitors to this website for details of the two emails which were sent by Phil Jones of CRU, demanding withdrawal of the articles about recent errors in CRU hemispheric temperatures, the following exchange of emails was made via a very large CC (110 addressees), with both of Jones’ emails signed in his official capacity as professor at CRU…READ ON
    http://www.john-daly.com/cru/emails.htm

    Wikipedia: John Lawrence Daly
    John L. Daly (31 March 1943 – 29 January 2004) was an Australian teacher and self-declared “Greenhouse skeptic.” He was known for speaking out publicly against what he called the “Global Warming scare,” and authored the book The greenhouse trap: Why the greenhouse effect will not end life on earth, published in 1989 by Bantam Books. After his death until 2008, his website, Still Waiting for Greenhouse was maintained by Jerry Brennan.
    Daly investigated various studies by scientists which support global warming scenarios and raised objections to them…

    110

    • #
      Graeme No.3

      If you can get hold of John Daly’s book then it is still a good read. Even thought it is now 30 years old it still expresses the problems with the AGW cult.
      Sadly you will have trouble finding it. A few booksellers in the USA are asking northward of $200, so presumably there is a demand for it.

      90

  • #
    george1st:)

    We need a ‘Wikileaks’ to find what wikipedia,google,facebook etc are now hiding .

    50

  • #
    Ruairi

    Many scientists dared to dissent,
    From consensus 97%,
    Are by platforms delisted,
    As if never existed,
    Like sinners cast out to repent.

    100

  • #
    Avon

    Now I regret donating to Wikipedia in the past.

    For an alternative fork of Wikipedia you could try infogalactic.com.

    50

    • #
      Serp

      Somebody at Quadrant suggested conservapedia as an alternative.

      50

    • #
      sophocles

      I personally find Infogalactic to be a more “comfortable” place: it hasn’t “got The Rabids” which seems to infest Wikipedia.

      Just compare the pages of Joanne Nova on each.

      (And other notable `non-97%-consensus’ scientists, for that matter.)

      However, like all publicly editable encyclopedias: all information gained should still be checked against other known reliable sources as far as possible.

      20

  • #
    Benjir

    This is not the full story..
    The reason given for wanting remove it was because of the title. They want the scientists listed on the page to only be climate scientists, not just your garden variety scientist. I don’t agree with this requirement, but I’m not sure why this point is being overlooked on this otherwise excellent blog.
    Thanks Jo, appreciate your work otherwise.

    30

    • #
      Kalm Keith

      The other side of that relates to the actual competency of those with “Climate Science” degrees to deal with the situation being debated.

      A scan of the course requirements for a prominent U.S. graduate showed little if any advanced mathematics, physics, chemistry, geology or process analysis and certainly no modeling.

      That “graduate” is now working in a Sydney university and regularly makes pronouncements on matters Climate.

      What does it all mean: are we being had?

      KK

      40

  • #
    el gordo

    World renown hydrologist Francis Chiew doesn’t even get a mention on wiki, the klimatarit will shortly rectify this omission.

    ‘River flows in Australia’s food bowl, the Murray Darling Basin, will decline by as much as 40 per cent over the next 50 years under the current trajectory of global warming, one of Australia’s top hydrologists has warned.

    ‘Internationally recognised hydrologist Francis Chiew, a CSIRO research leader and co-author on the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, said Australia was the driest and among the most water-dependent countries in the world.’ SMH

    30

  • #
    WXcycles

    Decided to decrease from 4 sheets to 3 sheets, for the duration.

    That is all.

    50

  • #
    Peter Fitzroy

    Also according to Wikipedia, 97% of scientists believe in evolution, which is similar to those who believe in climate change. Are the dissenters common to both groups, ie do not believe in climate change and evolution?

    09

    • #
      AndyG55

      Do you have any empirical evidence of CO2 effects on weather or climate?

      Stick to real science, instead of scientifically baseless innuendo.

      61

    • #
      AndyG55

      You do know that “consensus” is never any part of real science, don’t you ?

      That means that “climate science” is not real science,

      … because it relies almost totally on a faked consensus.

      81

    • #
      Phil Taylor

      No. I would say most climate skeptics believe in evolution.
      However, it is still a theory and if there are opposing views with good evidence, they should be allowed to present it.
      They should be allowed to debate it. The path to truth is based on a thorough investigation of the topic that includes all points of view.

      30

      • #
        sophocles

        Why don’t you just ask them PF?
        Maybe on the way, one or more of them may tell you that Science is about Facts, not consensus. Consensus is about opinion which is not facts.

        I don’t believe in either climate change nor evolution.

        There is no evidence for climate change (as defined by the UN) but there is incontrovertible climate variation.
        You only have to look into the geological record.
        The evidence for evolution is overwhelming.
        You only have to look into the geological record, [fossil record], and especially, what we have learned about genes and variation in our genetic structures.

        10

  • #
    Choroin

    I used to donate to Wikipedia yearly because I thought it was a truly productive way of getting the best bang for charity bucks (free access to knowledge is a no-brainer).

    About 4 years ago I realized they were ideologically captured by left-wing creep, having no intention of setting up internal checks to prevent ideological capture at the editing level.

    Then, during the Trump election campaign in 2016, according to Wikipedia:

    [Jimmy] Wales and eleven other business leaders signed on to an open letter to American voters urging them not to vote for Donald Trump in that year’s United States presidential election.[108]

    Thus, Wales, the so-called libertarian took an open stance against political populism – ofc, only when it’s popular and effective on the right side of the spectrum.

    It doesn’t surprise me at all that Wikipedia is continuing their purge against valid skeptical voices and opinions in the field of CAGW.

    They’ve chased me a few times in the last four years via email to extract further donations and I’ve replied to their emails declining, explicitly singling out their blatant ideological bias regarding CAGW – one of the most important public policy debates in modern history – and they always reply with some Sergeant Shultz answer akin to “I know nothing,” or that the editorial process is ‘independent’ and ‘un-biased’.

    There really is no debate regarding CAGW, because a debate required two point of view and one has been effectively silenced.

    It’s a repression, not a debate.

    60

    • #
      Phil Taylor

      I stopped donating after I noticed this list was dropped. It is not for Wikipedia to determine who is right or wrong on this issue.
      Post the information and allow people to reach their own conclusions. The majority once thought the sun went around the earth.

      40

    • #

      Consider donating to Gutenberg.org, whose Australian branch makes available a lovely collection of George Orwell essays.

      10

  • #
    Phil Taylor

    I noticed that Wikipedia deleted this list too.
    I am glad someone else noticed.
    Thank you for posting…

    10

  • #

    The Wikimask slipped when I noticed they label living libertarian and objectivist activists as ATHEIST, but not their living communist comrades. My guess is they want conservative warriors for the babies to shoot us down and spare their buddies. To get a look at hatred of choice and freedom look at the Wikipedia entry on spoiler votes.
    Spoiler votes is what libertarians use to undo the damage done by communist and prohibitionist spoiler votes in previous centuries. Our votes are now greater in number than the winning and losing halves of the kleptocracy in American presidential elections. This deeply bothers totalitarians…

    00

  • #
    pat

    on the other hand…much amusement in the following:

    Wikipedia: Scientific consensus on climate change
    Nearly all publishing climate scientists (97–98%) support the consensus on anthropogenic climate change, and the remaining 3% of contrarian studies either cannot be replicated or contain errors. A November 2019 study showed that the consensus among research scientists had grown to 100%, based on a review of 11,602 peer-reviewed articles published in the first 7 months of 2019…

    In 2004, the geologist and historian of science Naomi Oreskes summarized a study of the scientific literature on climate change.[135] She analyzed 928 abstracts of papers from refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003 and concluded that there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

    Surveys of scientists and scientific literature
    Oreskes divided the abstracts into six categories: explicit endorsement of the consensus position, evaluation of impacts, mitigation proposals, methods, paleoclimate analysis, and rejection of the consensus position. Seventy-five per cent of the abstracts were placed in the first three categories (either explicitly or implicitly accepting the consensus view); 25% dealt with methods or paleoclimate, thus taking no position on current anthropogenic climate change. None of the abstracts disagreed with the consensus position, which the author found to be “remarkable”…
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_consensus_on_climate_change

    10

  • #
    pbw

    Freeman Dyson has passed away. Move him to “Deceased.”

    00

  • #
    2dogs

    If it’s worth noting, it is worth indexing.

    If knowing who is a skeptic is worthless, why note they are a climate skeptic on their pages? If the scientists themselves are not noteworthy, why have pages for them?

    10

  • #
    Dennis

    George Bernard Shaw was one of the foundation members of the socialist Fabian Society established in the 1800s in England, one Fabian saying is the inevitability of gradualness.

    Here we have the Australian Fabian Society and most if not all ALP MPs are members.

    100

  • #
    Serp

    No. It’s better to show your working.

    20