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.
- Khabibullo Abdusamatov, astrophysicist at Pulkovo Observatory of the Russian Academy of Sciences.[81][82]
- Sallie Baliunas, retired astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[83][84][85]
- Timothy Ball, historical climatologist, and retired professor of geography at the University of Winnipeg.[86][87][88]
- Ian Clark, hydrogeologist, professor, Department of Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[89][90]
- Vincent Courtillot, geophysicist, member of the French Academy of Sciences.[91]
- Doug Edmeades, PhD., soil scientist, officer of the New Zealand Order of Merit.[92]
- David Dilley, B.S. and M.S. in meteorology, CEO Global Weather Oscillations Inc. [198][199]
- David Douglass, solid-state physicist, professor, Department of Physics and Astronomy, University of Rochester.[93][94]
- Don Easterbrook, emeritus professor of geology, Western Washington University.[95][96]
- William Happer, physicist specializing in optics and spectroscopy; emeritus professor, Princeton University.[39][97]
- Victor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Theoretical Physicist and Researcher, Institute of Geophysics of the National Autonomous University of Mexico.[98]
- Ole Humlum, professor of geology at the University of Oslo.[99][100]
- Wibjörn Karlén, professor emeritus of geography and geology at the University of Stockholm.[101][102]
- William Kininmonth, meteorologist, former Australian delegate to World Meteorological Organization Commission for Climatology.[103][104]
- David Legates, associate professor of geography and director of the Center for Climatic Research, University of Delaware.[105][106]
- Anthony Lupo, professor of atmospheric science at the University of Missouri.[107][108]
- Jennifer Marohasy, an Australian biologist, former director of the Australian Environment Foundation.[109][110]
- Tad Murty, oceanographer; adjunct professor, Departments of Civil Engineering and Earth Sciences, University of Ottawa.[111][112]
- Tim Patterson, paleoclimatologist and professor of geology at Carleton University in Canada.[113][114]
- Ian Plimer, professor emeritus of mining geology, the University of Adelaide.[115][116]
- Arthur B. Robinson, American politician, biochemist and former faculty member at the University of California, San Diego.[117][118]
- Murry Salby, atmospheric scientist, former professor at Macquarie University and University of Colorado.[119][120]
- Nicola Scafetta, research scientist in the physics department at Duke University.[121][122][123]
- Tom Segalstad, geologist; associate professor at University of Oslo.[124][125]
- Nedialko (Ned) T. Nikolov, PhD in Ecological Modelling, physical scientist for the U.S. Forest Service [200]
- Nir Shaviv, professor of physics focusing on astrophysics and climate science at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem.[126][127]
- Fred Singer, professor emeritus of environmental sciences at the University of Virginia.[128][129][130][131]
- Willie Soon, astrophysicist, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.[132][133]
- Roy Spencer, meteorologist; principal research scientist, University of Alabama in Huntsville.[134][135]
- Henrik Svensmark, physicist, Danish National Space Center.[136][137]
- George H. Taylor, retired director of the Oregon Climate Service at Oregon State University.[138][139]
- Jan Veizer, environmental geochemist, professor emeritus from University of Ottawa.[140][141]
SCIENTISTS PUBLICLY QUESTIONING THE ACCURACY OF IPCC CLIMATE MODELS
- Dr. Jarl R. Ahlbeck, chemical engineer at Abo Akademi University in Finland, former Greenpeace member. [203][204]
- David Bellamy, botanist.[19][20][21][22]
- Lennart Bengtsson, meteorologist, Reading University.[23][24]
- Piers Corbyn, owner of the business WeatherAction which makes weather forecasts.[25][26]
- Susan Crockford, Zoologist, adjunct professor in Anthropology at the University of Victoria. [27][28][29]
- Judith Curry, professor and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology.[30][31][32][33]
- Joseph D’Aleo, past Chairman American Meteorological Society’s Committee on Weather Analysis and Forecasting, former Professor of Meteorology, Lyndon State College.[34][35][36][37]
- Freeman Dyson, professor emeritus of the School of Natural Sciences, Institute for Advanced Study; Fellow of the Royal Society.[38][39]
- Ivar Giaever, Norwegian–American physicist and Nobel laureate in physics (1973).[40]
- Dr. Kiminori Itoh, Ph.D., Industrial Chemistry, University of Tokyo [202]
- Steven E. Koonin, theoretical physicist and director of the Center for Urban Science and Progress at New York University.[41][42]
- Richard Lindzen, Alfred P. Sloan emeritus professor of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and member of the National Academy of Sciences.[39][43][44][45]
- Craig Loehle, ecologist and chief scientist at the National Council for Air and Stream Improvement.[46][47][48][49][50][51][52]
- Sebastian Lüning, geologist, famed for his book The Cold Sun. [201]
- Ross McKitrick, professor of economics and CBE chair in sustainable commerce, University of Guelph.[53][54]
- Patrick Moore, former president of Greenpeace Canada.[55][56][57]
- Nils-Axel Mörner, retired head of the Paleogeophysics and Geodynamics Department at Stockholm University, former chairman of the INQUA Commission on Sea Level Changes and Coastal Evolution (1999–2003).[58][59]
- Garth Paltridge, retired chief research scientist, CSIRO Division of Atmospheric Research and retired director of the Institute of the Antarctic Cooperative Research Centre, visiting fellow Australian National University.[60][61]
- Roger A. Pielke, Jr., professor of environmental studies at the Center for Science and Technology Policy Research at the University of Colorado at Boulder.[62][63]
- Denis Rancourt, former professor of physics at University of Ottawa, research scientist in condensed matter physics, and in environmental and soil science.[64][65][66][67]
- Harrison Schmitt, geologist, Apollo 17 astronaut, former US senator.[68][69]
- Peter Stilbs, professor of physical chemistry at Royal Institute of Technology, Stockholm.[70][71]
- Philip Stott, professor emeritus of biogeography at the University of London.[72][73]
- Hendrik Tennekes, retired director of research, Royal Netherlands Meteorological Institute.[74][75]
- Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee.[76][77]
- Fritz Vahrenholt, German politician and energy executive with a doctorate in chemistry.[78][79]
- Valentina Zharkova, professor in mathematics at Northumbria University. BSc/MSc in applied mathematics and astronomy, a Ph.D. in astrophysics.
SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT THE CAUSE OF GLOBAL WARMING IS UNKNOWN
- Syun-Ichi Akasofu, retired professor of geophysics and founding director of the International Arctic Research Center of the University of Alaska Fairbanks.[142][143]
- Claude Allègre, French politician; geochemist, emeritus professor at Institute of Geophysics (Paris).[144][145]
- Robert Balling, a professor of geography at Arizona State University.[146][147]
- Pål Brekke, solar astrophycisist, senior advisor Norwegian Space Centre.[148][149]
- John Christy, professor of atmospheric science and director of the Earth System Science Center at the University of Alabama in Huntsville, contributor to several IPCC reports.[150][151][152]
- Petr Chylek, space and remote sensing sciences researcher, Los Alamos National Laboratory.[153][154]
- David Deming, geology professor at the University of Oklahoma.[155][156]
- Stanley B. Goldenberg a meteorologist with NOAA/AOML’s Hurricane Research Division.[157][158]
- Vincent R. Gray, New Zealand physical chemist with expertise in coal ashes.[159][160]
- Keith E. Idso, botanist, former adjunct professor of biology at Maricopa County Community College District and the vice president of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[161][162]
- Kary Mullis, 1993 Nobel laureate in chemistry, inventor of the polymerase chain reaction (PCR) method.[163][164][165]
- Antonino Zichichi, emeritus professor of nuclear physics at the University of Bologna and president of the World Federation of Scientists.[166][167]
SCIENTISTS ARGUING THAT GLOBAL WARMING WILL HAVE FEW NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES
- Indur M. Goklany, electrical engineer, science and technology policy analyst for the United States Department of the Interior.[168][169][170]
- Craig D. Idso, geographer, faculty researcher, Office of Climatology, Arizona State University and founder of the Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.[171][172]
- Sherwood B. Idso, former research physicist, USDA Water Conservation Laboratory, and adjunct professor, Arizona State University.[173][174]
- Patrick Michaels, senior fellow at the Cato Institute and retired research professor of environmental science at the University of Virginia.[175][176]
DECEASED SCIENTISTS
— who published material indicating their opposition to the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming prior to their deaths.
- August H. “Augie” Auer Jr. (1940–2007), retired New Zealand MetService meteorologist and past professor of atmospheric science at the University of Wyoming.[177][178]
- Reid Bryson (1920–2008), emeritus professor of atmospheric and oceanic sciences, University of Wisconsin-Madison.[179][180]
- Robert M. Carter (1942–2016), former head of the School of Earth Sciences at James Cook University.[181][182]
- Chris de Freitas (1948–2017), associate professor, School of Geography, Geology and Environmental Science, University of Auckland.[183][184]
- William M. Gray (1929–2016), professor emeritus and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, Department of Atmospheric Science, Colorado State University.[185][186]
- Yuri Izrael (1930–2014), former chairman, Committee for Hydrometeorology (USSR); former firector, Institute of Global Climate and Ecology (Russian Academy of Science); vice-chairman of IPCC, 2001-2007.[187][188][189]
- Robert Jastrow (1925–2008), American astronomer, physicist, cosmologist and leading NASA scientist who, together with Fred Seitz and William Nierenberg, established the George C. Marshall Institute.[190][191][192]
- Harold (“Hal”) Warren Lewis (1923–2011), emeritus professor of physics and former department chairman at the University of California, Santa Barbara.[193][194]
- Frederick Seitz (1911–2008), solid-state physicist, former president of the National Academy of Sciences and co-founder of the George C. Marshall Institute in 1984.[195][196][197]
- Joanne Simpson (1923-2010), first woman in the United States to receive a Ph.D. in meteorology, [201]
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
Agreed. Its now just become another pile of digital road kill….
150
Thank you, everyone who placed integrity ahead of groupthink, career advancement and service to the globalists powergrabbers!
230
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
“What was the name of a comrade who made thousands of edits to promote Global Warming hysteria?”
William Connolly (sp?)
180
William Connolley
Some useful information on his actions at Wikipedia here:
https://climateaudit.org/2009/12/19/climategatekeeping-wikipedia/
130
Connolley and his cohorts of little helpers were involved in removing the Marcel Leroux Wikipedia page… I know I fought them.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/death-by-stoat/
70
TomRude
The Marcel Leroux Wikipedia page still exists on the French site
40
I know and it was also a fight to keep it there…
20
Tom
Thank you for your efforts and for winning that fight.
The French Wiki links are very useful for my research.
The Mobile Polar Anticyclone
20
This site my help you track some of Leroux publications
https://hacene-arezki.fr/marcel-leroux/
Cheers
10
Page saved on the Wayback Machine.
00
Start here and track back if you haven’t met him
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/30/pointmans-the-scorning-of-william-connolley/
40
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
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
An excellent reason for ignoring their begging messages IMO
80
John!
— 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
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
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
Meanwhile, elsewhere in the Commonwealth….
https://nationalpost.com/opinion/john-robson-canadas-stark-new-reality-barges-in-after-warren-buffett-pulls-out
50
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
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
Well samizdats did the Soviet Union so why not?
20
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
To Wit:
“I would rather have questions that can’t be answered than answers that can’t be questioned.” ― Richard Feynman
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
It seems, once again that I have been immoderate.
00
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
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:
Wunderkind!
The CO2 concentrations are still too high but Planet Earth sure ain’t gonna catch fire.
Enjoy.
10
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
Was this Bob Carter,
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/#comment-415841
In the same thread ;
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/#comment-416131
KK
50
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
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
Unless I missed his name in your list, you have omitted the main person of interest – Svante Arrhenius.
40
Plato?
A Eugenicist?
He was a bit of a nutter at times, but Eugenics?
10
Climate scientist heroes every one of them !
Can the blog award a special
Freeman Dyson Stamp
To each & every one of them ?
80
One of the “benefits,” of Global Warming.
http://joannenova.com.au/2011/08/blockbuster-planetary-temperature-controls-co2-levels-not-humans/#comment-416613
KK
60
[...] 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
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:
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
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
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
… 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
” Wikipedia is no more than social media for the left
inclinedbehind”?30
The only thing George Orwell got wrong was the date.
110
He should have named one of the pigs Soros.
40
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
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
PC is a form of extremism we need to get rid of. Its corrosive and tyrannical.
70
Wikipedia’s Night of the Book Burning.
https://www.dw.com/en/when-books-were-burned-in-germany/a-43725960
110
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
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
PSI Wars: TED, Wikipedia and the Battle for the Internet
https://www.amazon.com/PSI-Wars-Wikipedia-Battle-Internet-ebook/dp/B00H35ONA8/ref=
20
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
ABC were banging on about bleaching on the GBR last week el gordo.
40
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
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
GBR bleaching is a normal part of the GBR’s life cycle !
30
Yes, but unusual to have a bleaching event without El Nino.
10
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
Thanks for the insight, I agree that Gretel is probably a no show.
https://earth.nullschool.net/#current/wind/surface/level/orthographic=-204.69,-30.40,1634/loc=143.642,-27.345
30
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
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
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
“Now, suddenly it is?”
Wrong again.
Why is it always so ?
51
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
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
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
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
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
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
We need a ‘Wikileaks’ to find what wikipedia,google,facebook etc are now hiding .
50
Many scientists dared to dissent,
From consensus 97%,
Are by platforms delisted,
As if never existed,
Like sinners cast out to repent.
100
Now I regret donating to Wikipedia in the past.
For an alternative fork of Wikipedia you could try infogalactic.com.
50
Somebody at Quadrant suggested conservapedia as an alternative.
50
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
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
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
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
I would like to know on what basis Chiew makes this declaration. It can’t be Australia’s rainfall figures, as these show about 50/50 more/less rainfall over the last 50 years.
40
Being an IPCC author, he is just making stuff up.
30
Decided to decrease from 4 sheets to 3 sheets, for the duration.
That is all.
50
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
Do you have any empirical evidence of CO2 effects on weather or climate?
Stick to real science, instead of scientifically baseless innuendo.
61
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
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
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
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:
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
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
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
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
Freeman Dyson has passed away. Move him to “Deceased.”
00
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
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
No. It’s better to show your working.
20