To: Jimmy@wikipedia.org
Dear Jimmy,
Writing from the U.S.A.
I’ve used Wikipedia countless times and recommended it to many friends as well. So . . . the natural question is WHY am I NOT contributing at this time? In a nutshell, the answer is that I love 92% of Wikipedia content, but know for a fact that at least 8-9% is deliberately made up and maintained untrustworthy. What do I mean? I mean that it is verifiably slanted toward bucking up popular left-wing causes rather than showing high-fidelity toward verifiable truth. I’ve talked to many friends and associates who, like me conclude that Wikipedia does NOT allow any factual contributions that belie left-wing “truths” whose science or history is “already decided and beyond controversy.” I’ve had six entire contributions items of this nature disappear from Wikipedia out of 13 or so contributions to these six items.
For now, two items illustrating what I mean are 1) my information on Greenland which Wikipedia has totally rejected in favor of the LIE that Greenland was never GREEN even during the 300 year Medieval Optimum: I refer you to the dvd from the HistoryChannel.com Little Ice Age, Big Chill which shows real science in operation as well as real history which is apparently NOT GOOD ENOUGH for Wikipedia.com because it’s about 88% out-of-sync with leftist politics and their desire to create worldwide carbon taxation which, naturally enough requires pretty much a totalitarian state to efficiently pull off . . . and 2) The fact that Wikipedia used to have contributions on global-warming and climate-change(haven’t looked at them over the last seven years) which reinforce the LIE that “99% of reputable scientists back this claim. I could off-hand refute that contention with 15 or 16 facts. I refer you to: http://petitionproject.org/ IF the 99% figure were accurate, in America alone 3,148,700 scientists would have weighed in backing global warming with 902,900 of them holding doctorate degrees . . . not to mention the important fact for anyone who respects science . . . that consensus has absolutely no import in science . . . ZERO import. I think you need to have one article and only one article on the subject: “The Global Warming Controversy.”
Here’s a quick rundown/outline of crucial arguments against the VALIDITY of global warming conjecture. And, Jimmy, IF you know anything about science and have any respect for it . . . you appreciate the fact that like consensus . . . even 100% validity in most cases proves nothing as far as ultimate truth. As Aristotle, the man who literally invented logic with his square of logical opposition, told us . . . IF all the premises themselves are true; and the argument is entirely valid, then and only then can we say that truth has been shown. OK, a brief “hit list” suggesting strongly that global-warming is what we Americans call “B.S.”
1. The hottest 300 year period in the last 2,500 years (the Medieval Optimum was deliberately omitted from the calculations.
2. The Little Ice Age that followed the Medieval Optimum, was totally included naturally enough since its inclusion appears to weigh heavily for the theory of man-caused global warming.
3. In the November, 2009 revelation by many British newspapers of a conspiracy to push the global warming narrative which was named “Climate Gate”; and was based upon some 786,000 e-mails and documents, I believe, your CRU (Climate Research Unit) in Cardiff and the U.N. International Panel on Climate Change were implicated for pseudo-science at best and a conspiracy to silence dissenting valid facts and opinion and sway the world of the university and scientific magazines in doing so.
4. In particular the narrative supporting the “hockey-stick” phenomena was totally debunked.
5. Don’t many of you in Britain call militant environmentalists “Mean-Greenies” and/or dyed-in-the-wool statist politicos “Watermelons” “Green on the outside; but red or pink on the inside”) denoting the desire of ultra-socialist and even communist interests to take advantage of the “need for” ever-expanding government and ever-diminishing individual freedoms in order to tax carbon?
6. Here in the United States the chief proselytizers of the politics of Global-Warming were the same people (John Holdren, for instance, President Obama’s “Green Czar) who from 1972 - 1977 were all over the newspapers and magazines (especially our Time Magazine) pushing the imminent probability of “GLOBAL COOLING?” And most importantly this group was pushing (in college texts) all sort of draconian population control measures including but not limited to: forced abortions; forced sterilizations; sterilization agents in the public drinking water; and even policies akin to the Red Chinese now-discredited one-child per family law which among other problems, has thrown the normal gender ratio all out of whack!
7. And most obviously, all the dire predictions of Al Gore etc. (All the world’s glaciers such as Kilimanjaro’s all melted off by 2015; New Orleans, portions of Florida, an a goodly chunk of the USA’s Atlantic seaboard under water) have not come close to being accurate. If anything TRUE scientists tend to err on the side of conservative-estimates rather than trying to use sensationalist claims such as those of 1972 and 2004 made by Coming-Ice Agers; and Global Warming advocates. Again, my observations are NOT all science, but they are all true. So IF my premises are correct that . . .
A. Global warming caused by human intervention is NOT proven science because the methods and people involved have NOT been objective and circumspect.
B. Much evidence indicates strong involvement of agents of political-correctness on the YEA side which happens to coincide with that side’s long and militant history of advocating causes that require large collectivist governments such as those once found in all the 38 communist governments responsible during the period 1917 -2010, I believe, for 132 million democides (peace-time deaths of citizens caused by a regime’s INcompetence or oppression or just plain murder) . . . again indicating far less than an objective environment compatible with real science.
C. So: the notion that all good people and smart people and most importantly 99% of all scientists have rationally and logically and scientifically concluded after adequate demonstration/experiment that man-caused global warming is a fact is NOT valid and cannot yet be proven true, if EVER.
Then: global warming, far from being settled science . . . is not yet worthy of the name "science."
I’m hoping against hope given my earlier encounters with science* on Wikipedia, that I’m talking to a logical man interested in science and truth. Good luck to you. I’ll be a contributor when the problems I’ve described are virtually eradicated. Good luck.
Robert VanDeHey
**I refer you also to your own wikipedia article on Karl Popper, the most famous and, I believe, the wisest philosopher of science in history and a man who started out as a communist and ultimately left that creed and become a firm advocate of individual freedom which he concluded years afterward was incompatible with socialism, believe it or not.
* * * * *
One thing I didn't mention to Jimmy is that when America added Earth Day to the calendar we were not only following an environmental tradition begun in the old Soviet Union in the mid-1950's but also beginning that tradition here on the anniversary of the birthday of Vladimir Ilich Ulyanov aka LENIN, but doing so on his 100th anniversary (he was born April 22, 1870 according to modern calendars rather than the czarist ones . . . what a shocking coincidence, eh? Most environmentalist probably do not know that connection, but you can damn well bet their progressive leaders sure as hell do!
Ya'all live long, strong and ornery,
Rajjpuut
What exactly is a quantum shift?
