Hurricane Sandy's Climate-Change-Denying Wikipedia Scribe Banned From Wikipedia For 24 Hours

After reading the commentary between Ken Mampel and Wikipedia, it just confirms what I have already said about Wikipedia and what most readers tend to forget, its just a very popular "BLOG" and not a real encyclopedia.

Dan, please, give us science, not your alarmists ramblings.

I wonder if Kens at his previous job or jobs had to be 'in control and always right'?

Oh, what will Ken do or not do, since he cannot validate his being by being a commentary on Wikipedia?

Perhaps find humility and put his mind and efforts into finding a job? Still that might be rude for me to say. I was let go, then found another job later to be let go again 3 months later. The unemployment area is one pain in the a#s, at times!

Still, I do believe, when we find humility, we do open up the door for adaptability and opportunity!

I wish Ken GOOD LUCK and GOD BLESS!

Two hack articles by Dan against this guy? Mr. Nosowitz, you should not be worried about the shrinking icecaps as the shrinking inside your pants.

Man up and realize that some people disagree with you. That you find this guy to be a looser is fine, but by elevating him here, you have put his voice on your stage - which makes you what? A looser.

Yes, Popsci has put out some political articles. Yes, Popsci seems to lean to the left. Yes, it is still science. The reason for this is that one particular political party seems to constantly deny science. This is the party that constantly refutes human influence of global climate change, even though 90% of scientists know it to be reality. This is the party that says evolution is false, even though 95% of scientists know evolution to be true (just not the mechanisms). This was the party that consistently denied the existence and cause of acid rain in the 80's. This is the party that thinks you can't get pregnant from rape.

And Ken is the typical voice of those who want to blind society from science. If you read his other "talks" (not just the one linked), you'll see the thoughts of a very disturbed man acting like a petulant child. So yes, by denying science, he opened himself up to critique from the scientific community, of which Popsci is a representative.

What is really disturbing is that the right-wing trolls visiting a SCIENCE site don't understand this. I see day after day the complaints about "politics and science" from the same people who use totally unrelated articles as a chance to bash Obama. I'm sorry for them, but the Democratic Party is the party of science, and the Republican Party is the party of belief. Which belongs in Popular Science?

As much as I am an "alarmist" (that's what you "deniers" call us) I think that some rule about the neutral point of view (an important criteria for any factual article) is being broken here.
@syfyguy
You have no idea have many scientists begin to act like children at the "forum/blog/discussion/commentary" level. Just look at PopSci's comment section, for example. There are tons of people claiming to have massive science credentials who comment and bicker with one another like children.

Mr Nosowitz,
You have once again soiled what I consider an enjoyable publication with your transparent and amateur hack job on Mr Mampel, who I do not know, and may in fact be someone I agree with very little on.
But you have introduced your wide-eyed, hissing and spitting opinion where there is no proof, to slander someone in a publication that I once felt presented reasonable articles of scientific interest, (albeit some have glaring issues, but I can spot those for myself.)

I implore the editors of Popsci to never let you write for them again, you do not deserve, in fact have proven yourself wholly irresponsible to be a contributor to any publication that has the name "Science" in it, unless it is followed by another word, specifically "Fiction"

Oh you're right Mukuro, I've seen some giant children posting on this site who claim to be scientists, but Kenvideo is NOT a scientist, or even a meteorologist. You only have to read his "talk" section to know who was in the wrong in this wiki-battle. The neutrality of wiki WAS broken, but it was done almost completely by Ken, not his opponents. Every time anyone else even mentioned GW, he would delete it. He's one of those who think 90% of scientists are just wrong. Just read the dang history. Almost every post by Ken is either an outright insult to the editors, a passive aggressive response (I hate you, have a sparkling day), or a weak attempt at blaming the "establishment".

And sciencelover, I think you may need to look up the definition of "slander". First of all, slander has to be spoken. A written lie is called "libel". Second, there was no lie in this article! Did you even read it? Everything in this brief article is a fact that can be substantiated by reading his wiki talk page. There is no opinion in this article at all. I think you folks blinded to truth don't understand that simply saying something over and over doesn't make it true. Maybe your name should be "belieflover" or "opinionlover".

syfyguy,
If they speak loudly to be more correct in their opinions as people so often do, can they be "louderlover" as well, lol. Oh, sorry, in this case I need to type it with all caps,
"LOUDERLOVER", ..... snort.

I think Trump already took that name!

Any real scientist would first ask the question "what factual relationship can be established between the existence of Hurricane Sandy and changes in global atmospheric temperatures due to humanity's use of hydrocarbon fuels?".

Wikipedia definitely has a left-wing bias on these issues.

Ugh...that's exactly what several "real" scientists did do! If you read the articles, they don't say "global warming definitely caused Sandy", they say "so-and-so scientist believes this or that part of GW MAY have added to Sandy". This is neither bias nor a lie. This is a fact. It is a fact that these "real" scientists draw that conclusion. Does the majority of the scientific community believe this? No, they're not willing to go there.

What Ken did though is try to suppress any information that may contradict his viewpoint. This is exactly what bias is. This is a common trend among many conservatives: when something comes out that may challenge your belief, simply pretend it didn't happen, and do your best to suppress any information that might contradict you. "A lot of women are getting pregnant from rape, so let's pretend it can't happen, and try to hide the statistic of the thousands of pregnancies caused by rape. When the doctors and scientists start telling the truth about it, we'll just call it "liberal media" and the sheep will believe us".

And as for whether humans are contributing to GW...well, the jury has been in on that for quite a while. 90% of scientists agree human activity is increasing climate change. Once again, it is a FACT that scientists draw this conclusion. But how can so many people still believe it's not true, when the people whose job it is to know say otherwise? Oh, that's right, a Republican told me there wasn't enough evidence, so I must believe them.

Dan Nosowitz, It seems that have not yet learned how sad and pathetic your documentation of your own personal tripe. If you had chosen to do an article about wikipedia, as a model of truth vs false marketing, the denial of real science to meet political or finacial practices, or even how wiki represents, what we as a global community would choose to represent as our collective knowledge

Ken Mampel,
You are in my prayers. I hope you find a job and one you really enjoy! May God Bless You, Protect You and Your Life Is Filled With Much Happiness!

"... they say "so-and-so scientist believes this or that part of GW MAY have added to Sandy". This is neither bias nor a lie. This is a fact....."

No, it's not a "fact", it's conjecture. Only an intellectually feeble scientist, who has no confidence in the validity of his hypothesis, would make an ambiguous public statement such as "GW may have added to Sandy".

As for your pathetic attempt to denigrate those with opposing political viewpoints by claiming they wish to ignore the rape of women, you should be ashamed of yourself.

Consensus is not science, regardless of how many people agree. I'm an opened-minded, objective man of science. But I have yet to any conclusive evidence that human activity has significantly altered the earth's climate for the worse.

I notice that the vast majority of posts that commented on the childish nature of the 'science article' have been removed.
Certainly not would one could consider an open and honest view of the public reaction.
All it is is more childishness.