• Trouble logging in? Send us a message with your username and/or email address for help.
  • Hello all! We will be performing a website & forum update soon. You may get logged out so now is the time to make sure your email address in your account is correct - go to your account to check it and update it now. Send us a message with your username and/or email address if you need help.

Evolution & Climate Change Forced on Alabama Schools

New posts
It's a real piece of news which is the interesting part. Politics and religion play a part in these things I realize but not sure why this post would or should be aimed at any one group here. Our world is actually made up of children and adults who don't necessarily need a label on their heads to read or discuss an issue. And who all deserve an education.

The piece of news is surprising to me as I was raised in Alabama. I'm pretty sure we covered evolution and science. But maybe that was before standards became political?
 
Education will always challenge beliefs. Beliefs can be based on emotion, not evidence. The sad part is to see parents try to close their kids minds early on under the best of intentions.
 
I am all for including climate change in school curriculum. However, I think that students should be given some perspective on how information on this and many other political issues can be spun and manipulated to serve political, economic, or other goals.

I remember in my younger years that we were so very concerned about global cooling so I looked up in Wikipedia to refresh my memory on what that was all about. I was surprised to read in Wikipedia that global cooling worries were simply a result of a series of mistakes by press and other unscientific sources that led to the global cooling theory.

In other words there was really no science behind the theory. Then I dug a little deeper and found that a certain William M. Connolly edits climate change related information on Wikipedia and influences other sources of public information on this subject. I pasted some information about Connolley below. Makes one wonder if we are hearing only one side of scientific argument..... I wonder if my post will be mysteriously deleted.

William M. Connolley is a British Wikipedia editor known for his fanaticism in promoting the theory of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) and in censoring the views of critics and skeptics. He is the ringleader of the infamous global warming cabal at Wikipedia, a powerful pro-AGW group that has an iron grip on global warming-related articles. Any editors that attempt to introduce factual information that is against their point of view are ceaselessly harassed until they are forced to quit or are banned. Connolley--a Wikipedia editor since 2003--and the group enjoy tacit support from the Wikipedia hierarchy, who often turn a blind eye to the group's misdeeds. Lawrence Solomon said that "Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential person in the global warming debate".[1] Born on 12 April 1964, Connolley previously worked as a climate modeller and lives in Coton, Cambridgeshire[2] with his wife and children.

Connolley is well known for slandering global warming skeptics--whom he calls "septics"--on Wikipedia, frequently introducing inaccurate or biased information in their articles. His position on Wikipedia allows him to "tear down scientists of great accomplishment".[3] For example, "Under Connolley's supervision, [Fred] Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the Wikipedian in the process".[4] Because of his violations of the policy regarding living people, Connolley has since been banned from editing the Fred Singer article.[5] In contrast to his attitudes towards skeptics, Connolley frequently removes damaging information in the articles of supporters of the AGW theory; for example, he removed all mention of the Climategate scandal from the article of Michael Mann, a friend and fellow proponent of the GW theory.[6][7]

Connolley's editing on Wikipedia is widely acknowledged to be a conflict of interest[8] given his involvement in real life in many of the articles he is editing.[9] For example, he added information criticising on a book by Christopher Booker that was itself critical of Connolley.[10] When an editor contacted him to ask why, Connolley did not reply and simply deleted the question from his userpage.[11][12] Connolley is known to censor facts regarding the Medieval warm period.[13] Due to his prolific editing and his role in propogating the "scientific consensus", many believe Connolley receives funding for his editing, i.e., he is a paid editor.[14]

Connolley was formerly an administrator but was desysopped in September 2009 when Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee found that he had misused his administrator privileges to further his point of view in a content dispute.[15] In one dispute, he reverted to his preferred version of an article whilst the article was protected, stating "Lets wind everyone up".[16] Connolley became an admin on 14 January 2006 until his rights were revoked.[17] He is currently involved in an arbitration case relating to climate change, in which many editors brought to light Connolley's long history of misdeeds.[18][19] However, he is unlikely to receive a topic ban on global warming articles, a sanction that many editors have long sought, due to his favorable standing amongst the Wikipedia hierarchy. Connolley's current sanctions are that: he provide an explanation for any revert he does on a global warming-related article on the talk page of that article; he is prohibited from making any edits to the Fred Singer article or its talk page until 26 August 2010;[20] he is prohibited from interacting with the editor Abd in any way.

Information from William M. Connolley - Conservapedia
 
Conservapedia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Conservapedia is an English-language wiki encyclopedia project written from an American conservative, creationist, and Christian fundamentalist point of view.[3] The website was started in 2006 by American homeschool teacher and attorney Andrew Schlafly, son of conservative activist Phyllis Schlafly,[4][5] to counter what he perceived as a liberal bias present in Wikipedia.[6][7] It uses editorials and a wiki-based system to generate content.
Examples of the ideology of Conservapedia include its accusations against and strong criticism of U.S. President Barack Obama,[8] the Democratic Party, evolution, a wide array of alleged liberal ideologies, and Wikipedia's supposed liberal bias, views of the theory of relativity as promoting moral relativism,[9] claims of a proven link between abortion and breast cancer, praise for a number of Republican politicians, praise for celebrities and artistic works that it views as "conservative" and/or promoting moral standards in line with Christian family values, and acceptance of fundamentalist Christian doctrines such as Young Earth creationism. Conservapedia's "Conservative Bible Project" is a crowd-sourced translation of the Bible which Conservapedia claims will be "free of corruption by liberal untruths".[10]
The site has received negative reactions from the mainstream media, as well as from notable political figures, including commentators and journalists,[11][12] and has been criticized for bias and inaccuracies.[13][14][15]
History and overview[edit]

Conservapedia founder Andrew Schlafly


Conflict with scientific views[edit]
Various Conservapedia articles contradict established fields of science. On March 19, 2007, the British free newspaper Metro ran the article "Weird, wild wiki on which anything goes", articulating the dismissal of Conservapedia by the Royal Society, saying "People need to be very careful about where they look for scientific information".[15] A Los Angeles Times journalist noted Conservapedia's critics voiced concern that children stumbling on the site may assume Conservapedia's scientific content is accurate.[16]
Creation[edit]
Although not all Conservapedia contributors subscribe to a young-earth creationist point of view—former administrator Terry Koeckritz stated to the Los Angeles Times that he did not take the Genesis creation account literally[16]:9—sources have attributed the poor science coverage to an overall editorial support of the young-earth creationist perspective and an over-reliance on Christian creationist home-schooling textbooks.[6][7][15] In an analysis in early 2007, science writer Carl Zimmer found evidence that much of what appeared to be inaccurate or inadequate information about science and scientific theory could be traced back to an over-reliance on citations from the works of home-schooling textbook author Jay L. Wile.[38]
Evolution[edit]
Conservapedia's article on evolution presents evolution as a naturalistic theory that lacks support and that conflicts with evidence in the fossil record that creationists perceive to support creationism.[39][40] The entry also suggests that sometimes the Bible has been more scientifically correct than the scientific community.[41] Schlafly has defended the statement as presenting an alternative to evolution.[6]
Environmentalism[edit]
An entry on the "Pacific Northwest Arboreal Octopus" has received particular attention. Schlafly has asserted that the page was intended as a parody of environmentalism.[12] As of March 4, 2007, the entry has been deleted.[42]
Abortion[edit]
Conservapedia asserts that there is a proven link between abortion and breast cancer,[43][44] while the scientific consensus is that the best studies indicate that there is no such association for first-trimester abortion.[45][46]
Relativity[edit]
See also: Criticism of the theory of relativity
Conservapedia has also received criticism for its articles regarding the theory of relativity, particularly on their entry titled "Counterexamples to relativity", an article that lists examples purportedly demonstrating that the theory is incorrect. Attention was drawn to the article by a Talking Points Memo posting, in which they reported on Conservapedia's entry and stated that Andy Schlafly, Conservapedia's founder, "has found one more liberal plot: the theory of relativity".[47] New Scientist, a science magazine, criticized Conservapedia's views on relativity and responded to several of Conservapedia's arguments against it.[48] Against Conservapedia's statements, New Scientist stated that one is unlikely to find a single physicist that would claim that the theory of general relativity is the whole answer to how the universe works, and said that the theory of relativity has passed every test that the theory has been put through
 
Aww, this is so cute!!! A real live climate change denier!!! In 2015!!! This is like finding a Johnny Reb, cradling a musket and a Confederate flag wrapped around him, barking about Obama being a Kenyan, chanting about the earth being created in 7 days. So precious!!
 
Last edited:
LOL! I don't have any popcorn but I made cake. Want some?
 
New posts


Sign Up for SoWal Newsletter












                               
Back
Top