Articles 

Wikipedia Deletes “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming” in Astonishing Act of Censorship

In another disgusting indication of where climate science/debate is at today, a handful of Wikipedia editors have “voted” to delete the immensely useful and topical page: “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming“…

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.”

In other words, this decision was apparently taken by a single individual, the ‘Editor’, in Wiki parlance, points out Dr Roger Higgs. His/her “consensus” (ironic choice of word) is based on the online discussion among Wikipedia ‘Users’ at that site (link here), each of whom was evidently asked to vote on whether to “Keep” or “Delete” the page. However, far from a consensus, by my count (please check it) there were 35 Deletes and 19 Keeps. What qualifies the Editor to dictate that 35 to 19 constitutes a consensus, and use that claim to justify deleting a key document on arguably the most important (and most expensive) global social issue since World War Two?


There were a number of sane voices in the mix, however — 19 by my count.

Here is one such voice falling on the side of “keep”:

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! Stop throwing up buzz words like “denialist” and “consensus” which provide you with an unjustified view from your perceived moral high ground. Pick a person or persons you don’t think should be included, actually apply the four criteria and make an argument that they do or do not belong on the list! As for me, I’ve been an editor of this page for a little over a year. By my count, I’ve successfully added seven scientists to the list (I’ll soon be recommending an 8th). . . and I’ve shown my work every time, and those seven met the criteria. And as to relevance . . . the last IPCC report, IPCC 5, seems to have cut its projected warming over the next two decades in half (see IPCC 5 Figure 11.25). And actual observed warming is in the bottom 2.5 percent of the IPCC 3 models’ range. My god, this page is more relevant than ever.”

And here is the very last comment:

“You guys are doing very badly. Consider removing your bias. There is no such thing as consensus in science. It is all relative to one’s person’s head. Whereas you may think you are right, there are plenty real climate scientists who know that clima has always changed. I am a biologist and I am not part of this false consensus. Also, you guys use very bad words about people who don’t agree with this ignorance of climate of yours. Bad wikipedia.”

Dissenting voices are key to scientific progress. There shouldn’t be a system in place where some arbitrary (or otherwise) attempt at censorship can be successful on the back of loud “opinions”…

Fortunately, this wiki page formed the backbone of my article: “THE LIST” — SCIENTISTS WHO PUBLICLY DISAGREE WITH THE CURRENT CONSENSUS ON CLIMATE CHANGE (see link below), and so has been preserved, for now at least, until Electroverse is also scrubbed from existence (they’re working on it)…


Dr Roger Higgs concludes by noting the 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), 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).

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach — be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

Any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

Related posts

7 Thoughts to “Wikipedia Deletes “List of Scientists who Disagree with the Scientific Consensus on Global Warming” in Astonishing Act of Censorship”

  1. Miss Kitty

    Wikipedia is always begging for donations to “help with operation costs”, blah, blah, blah.
    Send your donations instead to Electroverse and other organizations that aren’t in Soros’ back pocket!

  2. John M. Brown

    This is why most adult do not even honor any statements obtained from WikiPedia, many schools do not even allow it to be used in school.

  3. rod

    A spectre is haunting the truth. Delisted scientists of the world, UNITE!

  4. The cabal of climate propagandists who control all Wikipaganda articles relating to climate change are consistently, brazenly dishonest and anti-scientific. The article which they deleted was riddled with mischaracterizations of the “consensus,” which were designed to promote the cabal’s point of view. The article was deleted because the cabal concluded that it nevertheless did more harm than good for The Cause of promoting climate catastrophism.

    Few people (and very few scientists!) actually deny that climate change (global warming) is real. 25,000 years ago the sites of present-day Boston and Chicago were under a sheet of ice which is believed to have been about a mile thick! So you can bet your sweet bippy that climate change really occurs (fortunately).

    The climate debate has never been about whether climate change is real. It is. The debate is over its scale, its attribution (how much of it is caused by mankind), and its effects (beneficial vs. harmful).

    There’s no scientific consensus that climate change is harmful. That’s why when climate activists survey scientists about their opinions on climate change, they don’t ask whether climate change is harmful, because if they did then their surveys wouldn’t show a consensus.

    Scientists who prioritize qeophysical reality above politics call warm periods, including periods warmer than present, “climate optimums.” The best scientific evidence indicates that anthropogenic climate change is modest and benign, and CO2 emissions are beneficial, rather than harmful.

    People who say things like that are called “lukewarmers.” For the purpose of toting up the “consensus,” we are counted as part of “the consensus.” But the same people who count us as part of “the consensus” in order to inflate their claimed consensus percentage, nevertheless call us “climate deniers,” “shills for big oil,” etc., in every other context.

    This was the last version of the deleted Wikipaganda article which was saved in The Wayback Machine, before they deleted it:
    https://web.archive.org/web/20191114044339/https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:List_of_scientists_who_disagree_with_the_scientific_consensus_on_global_warming.

    Here’s a good list of resources to learn more about climate change:
    https://tinyurl.com/learnmore4

  5. Christian

    I don’t even visit wikipedia at all anymore, for any reason – even when I know the topic being queried is totally non-political. The platform must not even be rewarded with a single mouse click, let alone donation dollars.

  6. Tobias Berr

    Thank you very much for your article. Dr. Robert Higgs is denying man made climate change himself.

    I was always wondered why the climate deniers, who are very active on social media from Facebook to YouTube, are not undermining Wikipedia.

    Unfortunately now they are.

    We have to put this very helpful list back online.
    I used it in the past unfortunately I didn’t make a copy.
    Who has got a the old version. We should put it online again.

Leave a Comment