Conservapedia

Sounds like a dumb idea and it seems to be one. So I looked up the Global Warming entry. Which I suppose you could compare to the wiki version. Unlike the wiki version the Consa one is just about fact free (even a graph of temperature change is obviously to liberal for them) and not really even very funny, though it does contain It should be noted that these scientists are motivated by a need for grant money in their field of climatology. Therefore, their work can not be considered unbiased, though no more than any scientist in any other field .[4]. Also, these scientists are mostly liberal athiests, untroubled by the hubris that man can destroy the Earth which God gave him.

Also its servers seem very slow – don’t these conservative folks have any big-money backers? – and has no entry for “stoat”. I got bored waiting for it to search for weasel so I don’t know if it has that.

Comments

  1. #1 Ian
    2007/02/24

    Wow, that’s even funnier than the evolution stuff (though it’s nice to see the basis for their opposition to GW expressed honestly, instead of pretending it was scientific).

    As for the server thing – DarkSyde over at dKos “slashdotted” them yesterday… no way they would have servers able to deal with that kind of traffic.

    http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2007/2/23/64536/3709

  2. #2 Kristjan Wager
    2007/02/25

    Several of the other ScienceBlogs (incl. Pharyngula) have already linked to it, so they have been more down than up the last week or so.

    Also, it’s worth noticing that several of the contributors are Pharynguloids, making fun of them. Of course, given the fact that their changes are not reversed, it seems like even hard-core Conservatives have a hard time telling the difference between satire and the real stuff.

  3. #3 Hank Roberts
    2007/02/26

    All weasels, all the time?

  4. #4 nc
    2007/02/27

    Extremely slow, you mean! (Although maybe it was just very slow before you drew attention to it and thereby overloaded its server still further by writing this post.)

    It has a very brief entry for the word “Force”:

    “A push or pull that changes the motion of an object.”

    This is unsatisfactory, I think, because you get equilibrium’s of forces acting (like sitting on a chair, with downward force F = mg), where I am exerting a downward force (weight) but my motion is not being changed.

    Ignoring forces which are in equilibrium is unhelpful.

  5. #5 nc
    2007/02/27

    Sorry, the plural for equilibrium is obviously equilibria.

  6. #6 garhane
    2007/03/04

    In the assorted exposures of Deniers and their funding, two items have bothered me. First, it does seem they come pretty cheap. Even the biggest of the swine herders, Exxon, does not pay out all that much when you take into account the many mouths to feed when filtered down through the various organizations, and quite a lot of that money went into overhead. The other thing is the speed of change and the number of large business groups that have broken ranks over the question of climate. The motives vary, but all they really seem to have in mind is to find some way to go on with Business As Usual. They do not really intend to leave anything in the ground, as it seems to me. Since it is also clear that no real leaderhip is coming from the political field, just assorted variations on chorus lines of pretty girls singing little anti litter ditties, things look bleak.

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.