Dec
Sneaky bastards at Wikipedia to delete “climategate” page?
Click on thumbnail for full size image
First the global warming fascists tried to wipe out the term global warming in favor of climate change. Then climategate rears its beautiful head and since they cannot counter the anti-AGW arguments, they are trying to remove the word from the lexicon of the climate change discussion. How? They will begin with the world’s number one source of (mis)information: Wikipedia.
Sure, the plan is to move the information (all of it?) to the Climatic Research Unit e-mailhacking incident page, but voila! just like that, no more climategate. Wikipedia doesn’t call Watergate the “Nixon’s Burglary at a Hotel” do they? Sneaky bastards.
Wikipedia is ruled by leftists, so while we should still try to force them to keep ithe page, and make it honest, they are going to do what they are going to do. But the term climategate will never die, and you can help it grow by using the word in every related piece of writing you do, and make sure you use the hastag #climategate in all your tweets on the climate change hoax.
H/T: MagicJava
Possibly related posts:
Wikipedia is much worse than what we describe as “main stream media” (they are no more mainstream-their place has been taken by many other honest news dispensers.MSM just refrains from giving you the news for one reason or another BUT the wlyingpedia turns and twists the news to suit its owners/moderators needs and whims.Wlyingpedia belongs in the waste basket-toss it in there and find reliable sources of information.
Just trying to help a bit here….
and….
google is at:
Results 1 – 10 of about 4,610,000 for climategate. (0.11 seconds)
Google has for a long time been trying to play down Climategate. Give them a couple of weeks more, and the search result will be MINUS xx million…
They have the campaign http://www.google.com/green/ and Al Gore as “senior advisor”. So they tweak their search algoreithms…
–Ahrvid
About a month or so ago, there were over 10,000,000 pages in the search results. So, I guess webmasters have deleted five million pages in the last month. Well, more than five million actually, because I’m sure several million new pages have been created since then.
Right.
This site at No 8 on Yahoo on ‘Climategate’ today…
I just got 14,500,000 in .43 sec on Google so there are some there still, cool
I watched google as this hit. It climbed from 6K to 60K to eventually over 30 Million hits,
On eve of 12-Dec, I googled, and saw a number … over 200 Million hits, a couple of times, then never saw it again (another poster said this online at some paper – where delinpole posts)
then it dropped to 19 M, down now to 4 – 5 M
(also, bing.com has been over 50 M this whole time, today 57 M)
bing had the term climategate in its autosuggest the first few days, but no more; climategate was # 1 on googles autosuggest after a few days, then disappeared a few days, now it’s there, but clearing placing some “cap” on number of hits;
how can we get better info?
And today the number of search results on Google is about 3.6 million only.
In addition, climategate.com had steadily climbed to #39 in the Google Search Results by yesterday afternoon–great for having just started. About 5:00 pm PST yesterday one of our article went “popular” and now has 409 Diggs.
http://digg.com/general_sciences/German_Physicists_Trash_Global_Warming_Theory
Well, a few hours after that, all of a sudden were were #143! Thousands and thousands of new visitors, a big Digg, new links from Fox Nation, Ace of Spades, and other big sites, and we drop ten pages on Google.
Does someone, somewhere not like the term climategate? Hmmm.
What to help out? Everyone and their friends please go and Digg the hell out of that article I listed above. (We survived the leftist “Digg “bury patrol” so far, so let’s give ‘em hell). Plus, it’s fun to go there just to read the insane comments from the left.
someone online had a list of top investors in “green” sciences; 2 founders of google were at 15 B lbs each; and Bill Gates was higher on list than that;
but I doubt there’s a connection
/sarcasm
I am appalled by the trenchant bias in Wiki. When the Climategate story first broke, there was a ‘Climategate’ page set up on Wiki.
It even went by that title.
Shortly after, within 24 hours at the most, it was deleted. In its place the newly titled ‘Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident’ was put in its place. Anyone typing the term ‘Climategate’ into Wiki was automatically diverted to the substitute page.
But it is not just one editor at Wiki who is behind the cover up, there is a covert cabal of editors misapplying wiki rules to strangle the story.
In my opinion, Wiki has fallen from grace. I now refer to it as Wankapedia.
And in this, they’ve removed completely the notion that it was whistle-blower moved by whatever noble reason to release the correspondence. That “hacking” is still entirely unproven as yet is apparently irrelevant — after all, it was for global warming itself.