"Science" and Wikipedia get my Angry Face

That's right, an official angry face from me.

It isn't SCIENCE that gets my angry face. I rather like science. Science is like... well... logical, you know? I mean how cool is this:

1. You observe a bunch of stuff. Really carefully, so you are sure you saw what you saw.

2. You think about it a bit and come up with a theory that explains ALL (all - read that: all) the stuff you saw.

3. You run it by others who examine your observations and conclusions without bias (oops, the "without" part is a problem for some)

4. If indeed the observations are real, and the conclusion (theory) fits ALL the observed facts, you have a theory that others can work with! Woot!

5. The theory suggests some other things that might be observed.

6. You go and look for those things.

7a. You find them or...

7b. You find they ain't...

8a. So you strengthen the theory and look for more consequences to research.

8b. Or you TOSS THE FREAKING THEORY CUZ IT JUST AIN'T SO.

It takes just one competent, true and contradicting observation to completely and utterly invalidate a theory. You don't hold the theory and say "well yes but..." YOU TOSS IT. And get smart and find a new one to explain ALL the observations. Even if cherished "beliefs" are sacrificed.

I mean, that at least should be SCIENCE right? And it is.

No, my Angry Face goes to "science". The one with the ironic quote-marks around it. And right now that would be the "scientists" who run the scam or strong-arm operation known as AGW or "Anthropomorphic Global Warming", currently going under the politically correct name "Climate Change". Cuz you see, AGW was not cutting it, but everybody agrees at least climate does change. But they don't mean that, they really mean AGW.

I don't care which side of the fence you're on - it shouldn't be a fence. And I'm not going to go into the litany that includes such things as the many scientists who's names were attached to UN reports "proving" AGW, but who claim they DISAPPROVED of the study or were simply not involved at all; the fact that it has become a scientific "Unamerican Activities Committee" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_Un-American_Activities_Committee), a form of Spanish Inquisition that barbecues anybody with dissenting viewpoints or data (which somehow doesn't appear in my description of actual science, above). No - no litany needed.

But you SHOULD know that one cherished source of information you may know and love has been systematically altered to remove long-established scientific climate data, because that data disagrees with the current opinion (well, I certainly can't call it a theory, can I? Since facts are tossed to keep it in play... gotta be an opinion).

And I don't mean in a little way - Wikipedia has had over 5,000 articles changed to remove specific known data, and over 2,000 users banned who tried to do something about it. And all due to one man. A climate "scientist". He's earned the quote marks.

Look here, if you dare. And these are actual occurrences, testimony, etc. You can "believe" them away if you wish. I will confer upon you the status of "Scientist", quote-marks and all, for proud display on your mantelpiece.

http://www.financialpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=62e1c98e-01ed-4c55-bf3d-5078af9cb409

A. Biker