Difference between revisions of "Talk:Climategate"
(Created page with "Article treats mainstream consensus as if it were absolutely definitive, even citing a Scientific American “fact check” as proof there was no misconduct. Anyone who reads...") |
(my 5cents) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Article treats mainstream consensus as if it were absolutely definitive, even citing a Scientific American “fact check” as proof there was no misconduct. Anyone who reads the document at the bottom of the article can plainly see that this claim is false and misconduct was rampant. Author of this version of the article clearly did not do so. | Article treats mainstream consensus as if it were absolutely definitive, even citing a Scientific American “fact check” as proof there was no misconduct. Anyone who reads the document at the bottom of the article can plainly see that this claim is false and misconduct was rampant. Author of this version of the article clearly did not do so. | ||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | |||
| + | (Molecodicles: don't forget to sign your comments with <nowiki>~~~</nowiki> , top left on keyboard, which will then show as your signature.) | ||
| + | |||
| + | Molecodicles, as it says in the [[Wikispooks:FAQ|Wikispooks FAQ]]: "The material on the site reflects the interests of our editors... Unlike Wikipedia, which is censored, our omissions result from a simple lack of editors. If you're knowledgeable about a particular topic and wish to share your knowledge for the common good without fear or favour". | ||
| + | |||
| + | I haven't added much on the subject, but agree with you on Climategate. In my opinion, Wikispooks is well suited to highlighting the large errors and omissions in the ([[David Rockefeller|Rockefeller]]-sponsored for decades) official climate narrative. This does not mean excluding the problems inherent in the "other side" ([[Karl Rove]] & co, sponsored by other corporate interests), or even that the official narrative on [[global warming]] is false. | ||
| + | |||
| + | There are plenty of articles on Wikispooks that are too close to the official narrative, don't despair :) [[User:Terje|Terje]] ([[User talk:Terje|talk]]) | ||
Revision as of 07:42, 16 March 2021
Article treats mainstream consensus as if it were absolutely definitive, even citing a Scientific American “fact check” as proof there was no misconduct. Anyone who reads the document at the bottom of the article can plainly see that this claim is false and misconduct was rampant. Author of this version of the article clearly did not do so.
(Molecodicles: don't forget to sign your comments with ~~~ , top left on keyboard, which will then show as your signature.)
Molecodicles, as it says in the Wikispooks FAQ: "The material on the site reflects the interests of our editors... Unlike Wikipedia, which is censored, our omissions result from a simple lack of editors. If you're knowledgeable about a particular topic and wish to share your knowledge for the common good without fear or favour".
I haven't added much on the subject, but agree with you on Climategate. In my opinion, Wikispooks is well suited to highlighting the large errors and omissions in the (Rockefeller-sponsored for decades) official climate narrative. This does not mean excluding the problems inherent in the "other side" (Karl Rove & co, sponsored by other corporate interests), or even that the official narrative on global warming is false.
There are plenty of articles on Wikispooks that are too close to the official narrative, don't despair :) Terje (talk)
