User:SmokeyTheCat

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by SmokeyTheCat (talk | contribs) at 04:58, 26 June 2015. The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.


Examples of Wikipedia bias

In reverse order of importance:-

1. The accusations of the subject's personal wealth in the article on Fidel Castro are unfounded but biased links exist supporting these libels. Having failed to assassinate him physically US Imperialism settles for character assassination. The CIA was not born yesterday.

2. The accusations of anti-semitism in the article on The Guardian are completely unfounded as any neutral would agree but a small group of Zionists keeps them in the article as they object to any (fair) criticism of the state of Israel. MOSSAD was also not born yesterday.

3. The article on Passive smoking, itself a spurious fiction of a term, is so biased as to be laughable. Big Pharmacy funded 'research' is trying to do to smoking what Stalin did to Trotsky but obviously such blatant falsification is unsustainable in the long term. I could write a book. This is very much part of the modern Healthist, Big Pharma-dominated world zeitgeist, in that all the old, simple, proven, well-understood drugs like booze, ciggies, spliff, coffee etc are all BAD while the endless procession of Olanzapine, Zoloft, Prozac and hundreds of others of new, complicated, untested and ill-understood drugs are all GOOD. Thus people labelled 'Schizophrenic', 'bi-polar' or whatever other non-science, meaningless junk diagnosis who happen to like a smoke or a drink are engaged in 'substance abuse' while their taking, say, Amisulpride for the rest of their lives is considered natural, harmless and right. Big Pharma is constantly funding ever more studies showing how the old drugs are evil poisons while the new ones are benign and safe. The reality is the reverse. It's all about money, power and control; Big Pharma doesn't control the old drugs and makes no money from them while it does from the new drugs. 'Follow the money' was Deep Throat's advice to Bob Woodward when he was investigating Watergate and in general human affairs his advice remains very relevant : follow the money and reveal the plot. Cui bono? [1]

4. The worst examples of bias are on the various pages related to Global Warming; this is a highly contentious area but a small group of Warmists keep the fashionable view very much dominant with highly selective and biased links. The same few Warmist editors crop up again and again on these pages. Indeed so one-sided is the presentation that this place could be known as Warmistpedia. Where to begin in criticising the thesis? Well, for a start the idea that Carbon, the basis for all life on Earth, is somehow a nasty element is so ludicrous it's hard to see how so many apparently sane people take this notion seriously. 'Carbon-free', 'carbon-neutral' etc what are these INSANE formulations supposed to mean to anyone with the slightest knowledge of science? If you mean carbon dioxide say carbon dioxide, not carbon. You can't moronically conflate 'carbon' with 'carbon dioxide'; these are different things like orange and orange-juice, tree and tree-house, pencil and pencil-sharpener, etc. Show me a life-form with a zero 'carbon footprint' and I will show you a plant. 'Carbon emissions' is another piece of utter gibberish; no allotrope of carbon is even a gas. You want to be 'Zero Carbon'? Well, first shed the 18.5% of your body mass that is this beastly element and then stop exhaling. All animals exhale CO2 and inhale oxygen. All plants do the opposite. CO2 is plant-food. So there is more plant-food in the atmosphere than there was. This is somehow a bad thing? None of the Warmists I have ever met even know what percentage of the atmosphere is CO2. It's 0.04%. And if this increases to 0.040% somehow we are facing an apocalypse? Why? Also in the past ten to fifteen year atmospheric CO2 has continued to rise but global warming has stalled. So where is the cause and effect? The Hockey Stick graph ends in 2000, with a nearly vertical line. If it were accurate world mean temperature would have gone up at least a percentage point in the last 13 years. It hasn't. Ergo the Hockey Stick is obviously wrong. But try getting this basic fact to stick on any of the various pages here that feature the Hockey Stick. No way. IPCC projections from their precious computer models in 2000, 2004, 2008 have all been proved wrong. Again try getting that truth into the relevant pages here. And how quickly we all forget. Hurricane Katrina was an unusually severe hurricane and at the the time all the Warmists cited this as proof of Global Warming. A photo-montage of a hurricane emerging from a chimney featured on the posters for Al Gore's film 'An Inconvenient Truth'. Since then, of course, hurricanes have all been normal and so this is all forgotten. And etc, etc. And anyone questioning this hypothesis is a 'denier'. Now all kinds of people believe all kinds of wacky things in the world:- Young Earth Creationists believe that world and the universe are only 6,000 years old. No-one calls them 'deniers' Some people believe that the Earth is flat. Again they are not called 'deniers' etc. No, only if you claim the Holocaust never happened or dare to even question that CO2 is causing global warming are you called a denier. Substitute 'revisionist' for 'denier' and you're back in the Soviet Union under Stalin; substitute 'heretic' for 'denier' and it's the language of the Spanish Inquisition. So you find yourself wondering what kind of thesis must be defended in such an extreme way, that it's opponents must be parodied and ridiculed? This isn't science.[2][3][4] Evolution is a good theory because people *doubt* it. Worldwide only a minority believe in evolution. The majority believe in some form of creationism, finding the idea that we are descended from apes disagreeable. Thus defenders of evolution have to continually point out it's strengths, ever demonstrate it's logic. The theory grows ever stronger as it is constantly under attack. Human-caused global warming via the medium of atmospheric CO2 is a bad theory because people *believe* it. They don't understand it. They just repeat parrot-like '97% of scientists say it's so' That is not a statement of science. Finally, even if the planet is still warming (questionable) and human-caused CO2 is causing it (highly questionable), does it even matter? The planet has been so much warmer for hundreds of years in the past with no ill-effects. The Medieval Warm Period and the Roman Warm Period are facts of climate history both blithely ignored or disparaged by the Warmists. The article on the former has also been butchered by the Warmists and the Hockey Stick lie attempts to erase it altogether. Who controls the past controls the future.

My sonnets and stuff:- [5]. The first sums up my present life in 14 lines. (Stephen Fry is a British celebrity considered witty by many who Tweets a lot.)

I'm still a complete putz at Wiki Mark Up Lingo, as this page bears witness, but I have created a lot of new pages. Here are some of them :-

I have also rescued The Last Resort (Eagles song) from being a mere redirect.

I have made contributions to, amongst others, :-

To Do List

Get all the Sarah Vaughan albums currently listed in red changed to blue. This will take some time as I will have to buy all the albums but will still be a pleasure.


The WikiProject Films Award
I, HairyWombat (talk), hereby award SmokeyTheCat the WikiProject Films Award for his/her valued contibutions to WikiProject Films. For creating the article Steelyard Blues.
Awarded 06:42, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:SmokeyTheCat&oldid=668716787"