Wikipedia deletes list of climate change skeptics

[Toulouse]

Cool, you’re the type of person protecting the alt-right Nazi hate speech as well? Freedom of speech is important, but spreading hate or spreading straight up false information is dangerous. Next you’re gonna tell me it’s ok for flat-earthers to share information without evidence? That’s what Wikipedia is about. Cited information with links to proof. But Wikipedia is all driven by regular people, constantly edited. I wouldn’t make a big deal of it. It can be edited by anyone.

Our "liberal" press spreads false information all day, everyday. You just participated in it yourself. You don't know that everyone in the alt-right is a "Nazi", or that they practice hate speech.

 

[Toulouse]

Climate change is almost universally agreed upon by science. The debate isn't if it's happening, the debate over mankind's impact on it... And since the major "skeptics" tend to be backed by oil and coal companies I'm not entirely sure why people trust them.

Climate change is not universally agreed upon - it's only agreed upon by those paid by the media to spread their lies. Many scientists claim that supporters of climate change are measuring from the wrong end of the stick, so to speak, so the numbers will always be skewed. The "liberal" media then controls the message...the image of a Hamster on a wheel comes to mind.

 

[Thunderian]

Climate change is almost universally agreed upon by science. The debate isn't if it's happening, the debate over mankind's impact on it... And since the major "skeptics" tend to be backed by oil and coal companies I'm not entirely sure why people trust them.

You’d sure think it was agreed upon by science, if people went around suppressing any information that said otherwise, wouldn’t you?

The truth is that the science isn’t settled at all. We know that the earth is slightly warmer now than it was 100 years ago, but whether humans caused this, whether it’s bad for us, or if we can somehow undo it, are questions that are not settled at all. Shutting down one side of the debate isn’t helpful, and should raise even more questions, since the side that wants to shut down all the naysayers also wants to drastically change the economic structure of the world in an attempt to “deal with it”.

 

[Kung Fu]

View attachment 33421

 

[Corvus Metus]

No, climate change isn’t universally agreed upon...

I’m not entirely sure why people trust all scientists either...like they can’t be bought off or bribed.

I don’t believe climate change...never have, and it’s not because I’ve believed companies..it’s just common sense. They’ve..scientists too.. have been trying to scare people about weather for ages now. I remember the new ice age growing up that somehow morphed into el nina...they’ve been working that angle for a long, long time!

Do you believe that human's have absolutely zero impact on the environment? Don't you think we should take better care of the planet God gave use dominion over rather than simply raid it for resources?

Our "liberal" press spreads false information all day, everyday. You just participated in it yourself. You don't know that everyone in the alt-right is a "Nazi", or that they practice hate speech.

I didn't say anything about nazis. I don't think everyone who's conservative or even nationalist is a nazi, either. Some of by best friends are conservative-leaning libertarians... And I'm an anarchist. I don't think people most people are nazis... But I'm not entirely sure why you brought them up since I didn't.

You’d sure think it was agreed upon by science, if people went around suppressing any information that said otherwise, wouldn’t you?

The truth is that the science isn’t settled at all. We know that the earth is slightly warmer now than it was 100 years ago, but whether humans caused this, whether it’s bad for us, or if we can somehow undo it, are questions that are not settled at all. Shutting down one side of the debate isn’t helpful, and should raise even more questions, since the side that wants to shut down all the naysayers also wants to drastically change the economic structure of the world in an attempt to “deal with it”.

If the "debate" over climate change didn't have one side saying "YOLO who cares about the future", I would actually consider it. But before it even became a thing, we've known that we can do damage to the planet. We've polluted the air and the water, caused the extinction of a variety of life, and genuinely thought profit was more important than preservation. Just like we have a responsibility to care for our fellow man, we have a responsibility to make the word a better place for our children.

 

[Thunderian]

If the "debate" over climate change didn't have one side saying "YOLO who cares about the future", I would actually consider it.

You should maybe take a look at some of the actual things the other side is saying. No credible person is saying the future doesn’t matter.

 

[elsbet]

Freedom of speech is only guaranteed to factual information. You can’t claim something and act like it’s based on facts. Courts decide whether it’s correct or wrong.

Like Daniele Ganser‘s case, Wikipedia is spreading false information.

God forbid you had to do your own research, and use good judgment. At least you're honest about your lack, thereof.

Odd you joined this forum... what on earth was the appeal?

 

[elsbet]

If the "debate" over climate change didn't have one side saying "YOLO who cares about the future", I would actually consider it.

I must have missed that breakdown... likely because it doesn't exist.

So called climate reports have been shown to use data that doesn't include years and years of information-- they only highlight a small portion that makes their claims look credible-- that has been proved. Nor is anyone promoting voluntary pollution-- which is *not* the only other option, as you've falsely and dramatically painted it.

... And I'm an anarchist.

Really.

Understanding Anarchy

As a political belief system, anarchy breaks roughly into two separate schools of thought. One rejects all government authority in favor of a belief in the individual's liberty and the right to self-govern.

The other rejects government authority in favor of a belief in collectivism, or the primacy of the group over the individual.*



* THIS IS NOTHING BUT COMMUNISM... HOW IT FALLS UNDER THE BANNER OF ANARCHY IS A MYSTERY. VOLUNTARY SUBJUGATION WOULD FIT UNDER THE PRECEDING SIMPLY BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RULED BY OTHERS, IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.

 

[Corvus Metus]

You should maybe take a look at some of the actual things the other side is saying. No credible person is saying the future doesn’t matter.

It seems like they do, especially when some of think tanks that fund the conflicting science are backed by companies that are profiting from the current, non-renewable source.

Willie Soon, for example, whose work Smithsonian lead to his credibility... Was found to have had funding from Exxon. So again, profits before preservation.

I must have missed that breakdown... likely because it doesn't exist.

So called climate reports have been shown to use data that doesn't include years and years of information-- they only highlight a small portion that makes their claims look credible-- that has been proved. Nor is anyone promoting voluntary pollution-- which is *not* the only other option, as you've falsely and dramatically painted it.


Really.

Understanding Anarchy

As a political belief system, anarchy breaks roughly into two separate schools of thought. One rejects all government authority in favor of a belief in the individual's liberty and the right to self-govern.

The other rejects government authority in favor of a belief in collectivism, or the primacy of the group over the individual.*



* THIS IS NOTHING BUT COMMUNISM... HOW IT FALLS UNDER THE BANNER OF ANARCHY IS A MYSTERY. VOLUNTARY SUBJUGATION WOULD FIT UNDER THE PRECEDING SIMPLY BECAUSE PEOPLE WOULD NECESSARILY HAVE THE RIGHT TO BE RULED BY OTHERS, IF THEY CHOSE TO DO SO.

Anarchy breaks down into a lot more than two schools of thought and simply asking if their view is collectivist or individualist doesn't help matters. Most individualist anarchists, myself included, want to also dismantle capitalism along with the state because capitalism and the concept of wealth also holds back individual liberty. This won't happen overnight, so I believe we should move towards collective ownership of the means of production.

 

[Toulouse]

Do you believe that human's have absolutely zero impact on the environment? Don't you think we should take better care of the planet God gave use dominion over rather than simply raid it for resources?



I didn't say anything about nazis. I don't think everyone who's conservative or even nationalist is a nazi, either. Some of by best friends are conservative-leaning libertarians... And I'm an anarchist. I don't think people most people are nazis... But I'm not entirely sure why you brought them up since I didn't.




If the "debate" over climate change didn't have one side saying "YOLO who cares about the future", I would actually consider it. But before it even became a thing, we've known that we can do damage to the planet. We've polluted the air and the water, caused the extinction of a variety of life, and genuinely thought profit was more important than preservation. Just like we have a responsibility to care for our fellow man, we have a responsibility to make the word a better place for our children.

The "Nazi" comment was directed towards the OP who did use the word "nazi", sorry for the confusion.