Defamation-pedia? Climate Institute Sends ‘Cease & Desist’ Against Wikipedia! 7-Page List Of “Falsehoods”, “Malicious Intentions”

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

The Jena-Germany based climate science and renewable energies- critical European Institute For Climate and Energy (EIKE) has sent a cease and desist letter to Wikimedia headquarters in San Francisco demanding that the platform remove all the “false content” in the German language entry about the organization.

Slander: Wikipedia’s German site describes EIKE as an organization for “networking and public relations work for the organized climate denier scene”. Image cropped from Wikipedia here.

EIKE is a non-profit association with the statutory purpose of promoting science and research in the field of climate and energy. According to EIKE, “We pursue our statutory association purpose independently of political parties, religious communities, other associations or organizations.”

EIKE claims the German Wikipedia entry about its activities and members has very little to do with the reality and that the content was in large part written to mislead readers rather than inform them and to slander the institute. “The content of the Wikipedia entry is filled with falsehoods which results in casting EIKE in an extremely negative light,” the Jena-Germany based scientific think tank commented by e-mail.

“Almost every single claim made by the Wikipedia entry about EIKE is either maliciously misleading, grossly distorted or just outright false, wrote EIKE Vice President, Michael Limburg in an e-mail.  “The Wikipedia entry was designed to produce a contemptuous image of the organization with the aim discrediting it.” The list of deletions demanded by EIKE is 7-pages long!

“Climate denier scene”

In one example, the Wikipedia entry claims that the EIKE “is described by independent voices from science and media as the center of the politically active and organized scene of climate deniers in Germany” (see image above) and that “its goal is to promote systematic attacks on climate science’s findings.”

“This is absolutely false and malicious,” EIKE responded by e-mail when asked for comment.

In the long grievance to Wikipedia, the attorney representing EIKE wrote that the claim made by the Internet platform’s authors was “made up”, “untrue and unlawful”, adding: “My client does not deny climate change, and their goal is not to systematically attack the findings of climate science.”

Among the many other alleged false statements made at the Wikipedia site was also that EIKE “pretends to be scientific, deliberately disseminates misinformation and tries to influence parties.” In the cease and desist letter, the attorney representing EIKE called that statement “false” and “unlawful”, adding that EIKE is independent of all political parties and that EIKE “conducts its own research on climate and energy and publishes it in scientific journals and at international scientific congresses.”

Renowned speakers at EIKE conferences

Over the years, EIKE has organized around a dozen international climate and energy conferences, which often feature many renowned, yet dissenting scientists, such as astrophysicists Prof. Nir Shaviv of the University of Jerusalem and Prof. Henrik Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute (DTU Space) in Copenhagen. Other speakers have included leading oceanographer Prof. Nils-Axel Mörner.

EIKE also notes that the conferences are open to any scientists, and that it is not solely a place where “climate deniers” meet.

Unlawful Holocaust slandering

Under the Wikipedia entry subheading “Grundsätze des Vereins” (principles of the association) it states that EIKE is “an organization of climate deniers” – a claim that is not only false but also “unlawful”, the EIKE attorney wrote. Climate alarmists routinely use the “denier” term in order to slander and equate global warming skeptics to Holocaust deniers.

Big Oil/coal conspiracy

In the Wikipedia entry about EIKE, it is repeatedly suggested EIKE is funded by the oil and coal industry and the Koch Brothers through its links to CFACT, Heartland Institute, and other organizations.

The attorney representing EIKE underscored: “EIKE a scientific institute and think-tank, organized as a non-profit organization, with the sole purpose of presenting facts concerning climate and energy without any ideology. Yet, it is suggested that my client financially represents the interests of the oil and coal industry, which is demonstrably not true.”

In total, EIKE sent a list 7 pages long of false statements and misleading claims to Wikipedia demanding that they be removed.

Intent to unjustly inflict damage to reputation

EIKE has been working for sometime to get the needed corrections implemented at the Wikipedia site, but without success. Officials at EIKE say the falsehoods and deceptive claims platformed by Wikipedia risks inflicting great damage to their reputation and the overall perception among the unknowing public.

EIKE officials recently sent a cease and desist letter to Wikimedia head offices in San Francisco. But according to EIKE, they received a response from Wikimedia that said there were no German speakers there, and so they couldn’t help.

Wikipedia is a worldwide platform whose content is regularly posted in almost every major language worldwide. Over the years it has been sharply accused of poor quality control and political bias, especially concerning hot-button political issues such as climate science.

Share this...
Share on Facebook
Facebook
Tweet about this on Twitter
Twitter

19 responses to “Defamation-pedia? Climate Institute Sends ‘Cease & Desist’ Against Wikipedia! 7-Page List Of “Falsehoods”, “Malicious Intentions””

  1. bonbon

    I strongly recommend googling “What is Wikipedia” for a definitive answer to this kind of behavior. Wiki founder Jimbo Wales let it all hang out here :
    onalt.philosophy.objectivism,bit.listserv.politics

    Wikipedia is basically an Ayn Rand organ, “Objectivism” anarchy being the meme.

    In the referenced PDF you will see the case of PanAM103 and total penetration of Wikipedia by intelligence services, sorry, Wiki editors.

    And Wiki groups like MedCom, ArbCom, WP:NPOV, WP:NOT#ANARCHY, .. only obscure the fact Jimbo has the final say. All these committees can be disolved, like the Queen disolving Parliament, as he right royally says himself.

    Climate is the current imperial perogative, and to ignore that elephant in the greenhouse is rather naive, I would say.

    This did not start with CO2.

  2. Ron

    Wikipedia is just completely useless for every topic that has a big dissent in the respective opinions on the topic. Cause the people active there cannot stand different opinions and try to delete them and not let the reader decide to take a look into the references and get an informed opinion by himself.

  3. Malcolm

    Wikipedia has been a defamation platform for the left for some time:

    https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/whats-wrong-with-wikipedia

    https://mlsxmq.wixsite.com/murry-salby

    https://anonhq.com/beware-wikipedia-never-trust/

    It will stop only when somebody like EIKE forces those in charge to be held accountable.

    1. Yonason

      Some good links I didn’t have.

      Thanks.

    2. SebastianH

      Hmm, why is climate skepticism something only right leaning people fall for? Otherwise why the emphasis on “the left” here?

      Also … why is it only a problem when you perceive the world as others misrepresenting you guys? Can you imagine how sane people feel when they see science so grossly misinterpreted in your small corner of the web?

      1. bonbon

        The real question is how almost everyone falls for WikiPedia – how did it become the “objectivist” , oh-so trusted “authority”?
        Never mind just climate, all kinds of subjects.
        For that you need to see what Jimbo wrote, the founder.
        It’s a bit like hearing Zuckerberg speaking about FaceBook (unrepeatable comment on trust us!).

        1. Yonason

          Note that while SebH wants you to think he’s talking about science, he never presents any factual evidence. Instead his emphasis is on perceptions, imaginations and feelings. That’s not the way a scientist writes. It’s how a manipulative activist attempts to hijack the thinking of weak minded fools.

        2. SebastianH

          The real question is how almost everyone falls for WikiPedia – how did it become the “objectivist” , oh-so trusted “authority”?

          It didn’t.

          Yonason:

          Note that while SebH wants you to think he’s talking about science, he never presents any factual evidence.

          I link to countless papers compared to your linking to strange bloggers of the deniosphere.

          Instead his emphasis is on perceptions, imaginations and feelings. That’s not the way a scientist writes. It’s how a manipulative activist attempts to hijack the thinking of weak minded fools.

          It’s the only way to describe what trolls do. There is no science that covers what you do yet.

          1. Yonason

            “I link to countless papers compared to your linking to strange bloggers of the deniosphere.”

            You mean like the paper you once linked to in support of your contention that insect populations were declining because of climate change, in which the author specifically stated that their decline had nothing to do with same?

            Also, refresh our memories, and link to some of the alleged “countless” times you cited anything other than warmist. And don’t give us the tired excuse that it’s too much bother. As much nonsense as you write, posting a link or two to something that can support your claim should be a snap.

          2. Yonason

            @Pierre

            ”No one has a monopoly of the truth.”

            That way of looking at “how full the glad is” gives them too much wiggle room. I would suggest that a better way is to focus on the fact that that warmists have a monopoly on falsehood, and exclusively on deliberate falsehood.

            While honest and dishonest people can both make mistakes, it’s only the dishonest who do it deliberately.
            https://www.cfact.org/2014/04/04/peer-reviewed-paper-its-ok-to-lie-about-climate/

      2. Kurt in Switzerland

        Seb,

        You wrote, {Hmm, why is climate skepticism something only right leaning people fall for? Otherwise why the emphasis on “the left” here?}…

        So you’ve never heard of Denis Rancourt?
        Are you personally aware of the ‘politics’ of all those individuals who challenge the IPCC prognoses?

        But before we get too far, perhaps you’d like to define “climate skepticism” for us.

        The other (rather obvious) response to your question would be to phrase it as the mutually exclusive set: “Why is it that those falling for the [climate catastrophe scare] come from the ideological Left?”

        The (rather obvious) answer is simple: because those from the ideological Left see increased central control of the individual as the answer to society’s ills.

        As far as “science being misrepresented” (grossly or otherwise), watch out for bricks, fella.

        1. SebastianH

          Kurt,

          Are you personally aware of the ‘politics’ of all those individuals who challenge the IPCC prognoses?

          What does this have to do with my remark about the OP (and many of the commentators here) are obviously right leaning individuals and lament about “the left” all the time? Climate science isn’t a left topic per se, why is climate skepticism a right-wing thing, fullfilling the stereotype us in the center of the spectrum have about the extremes?

          But before we get too far, perhaps you’d like to define “climate skepticism” for us.

          When I write climate skepticism on blogs like this one, then I mean the denialism, the creative way to interpret science and the cheerleading of “papers” that you guys agree with. Your corner of the web. Where actual facts don’t count, and people imagine “their facts” are describing better what is really happening.

          The other (rather obvious) response to your question would be to phrase it as the mutually exclusive set: “Why is it that those falling for the [climate catastrophe scare] come from the ideological Left?”

          Nope. My question is based on the observation that you guys often seem to think this is the case. It’s not a topic of the left, but somehow some right leaning folks think it is and it shows here. I wonder why that is, nothing more.

          The (rather obvious) answer is simple: because those from the ideological Left see increased central control of the individual as the answer to society’s ills.

          That doesn’t make the climate problem a left topic, not at all. If that is the reason why right leaning folks are often opposed and not the facts themselves … well, that is just stupid. Sorry to say it that blunt.

          1. Kurt in Switzerland

            Seb,

            Someday, perhaps, you’ll learn to re-read what you wrote prior to repeating obvious drivel. It will make you not only more rational, but also a better person.

            Until then, may God help you.

  4. Mike Haseler (Scottish Sceptic)

    When I used to try to edit climate articles, I began realising that the people editing were the same ones writing & reviewing the papers that they’d then cite as “proof” that they were right. It is nothing but blatant propaganda on most climate articles. You’d get a far less biased article if you had a Tory politician review a labour party candidate. (Republican review Democrat).

  5. Defamation-Pedia? EIKE Sends ‘Cease & Desist’ To Wikipedia Over Many ‘Falsehoods’ – Menopausal Mother Nature

    […] Read more at No Tricks Zone […]

  6. Petit_Barde

    An example of how activists proudly use censorship on wiki to promote the climate church :

    https://www.eike-klima-energie.eu/2018/03/03/wer-ist-andol-wikipedia-hat-ein-nicht-unerhebliches-aktivistenproblem/

    This is nothing else than Lizenkoïsm at its worst.

  7. Yonason

    On a related note, anti-social tech giants are doing the same. They want the world to be recreated in the image of their demented fantasies, and will tell any lie to justify their fascist response to whatever they see as a threat to their megalomaniacal obsession with world domination. Here’s just one examples.

    https://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2019/05/god-help-us-facebook-fact-checkers-pervert-gateway-pundit-headline-then-call-it-fake-news-and-eliminate-traffic-to-our-website/

  8. bonbon

    I wonder what Wiki commander-in-chief Jimbo thinks about climate?

Leave a Reply

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy

Close