Wikipedia “warming” becomes “climate change”

If I am ever bored or feeling down I often turn to the Wikipedia article on Global warming to get a laugh – almost invariably it turns up trumps.

So what was it today?

There was a time a few years ago when I noticed a day on the Wikipedia article when there was no change. That in itself was a landmark. When I tried to edit the article there were dozens if not hundreds of edits a day.

Today, I noticed that almost for the whole of July (if we exclude formatting changes and reverted edits) there had only been one substantive change. What was that change? A familiar named editor “Enescot” (usually meaning a warmist) made the change:

Future warming and related changes will vary from region to region around the globe.

Changed to:

Future climate change and associated impacts will vary from region to region around the globe.

And the reason given:

Enescot  . . (Slight change in lead. Most – but not all – regions will experience warming, so “climate change” is a better term to use)

So what?  “Most – but not all”. Or to put that another way, from “every area will warm” it has become “on average more areas will warm than cool”, which is exactly how most sceptics would express the small impact of CO2.

But more importantly, I have long argued that there is no such thing as “Global warming” because unless you specify the time period it is just a nonsensical idea. E.g. we have warmed since the ice age, cooled since the time of the dinosaurs and no doubt the world warms and cools as it gets nearer and farther from the sun each year.

So, in reality the Wikipedia article “Global warming” was pure and simple propaganda with the message “mankind is warming the planet”. A message we all know is false as it is currently not warming: a message which the zealots who run Wikipedia would never allow to be diluted. And yes, for a while I tried to get them to change the name to something that was less obviously biased like “Manmade Climate Change” but no.

Fortunately people have far more common sense than those editing the article because calling it “Global warming” when it is not warming is tantamount to putting a notice up saying “Nothing in this article can be taken as true!” So, the result has been that the article (much like the idea of Wikipedia neutrality)  has died on a its feet. It is there in name, but the number of active editors have plummeted, those who do contribute clearly have no knowledge of the climate.

Now we have effectively had the first month where the only change was “sceptical” … to do what I suggested a long time ago: change “Global warming” into “Climate change” … and note it was not even “man-made climate change” … in other words it now admits what we sceptics have been saying all along: “the climate changes”.