Bias on the Internet — Signs of a New Dark Age?

Bias on the Internet: Bush, 9/11, CIA and Wikipedia
President Bush, Jr., looking over 9/11 fires and Wikipedia-CIA logos. Bias on the internet is creating some strange ideas. Photograph of Bush: Agência Brasil, CC BY 3.0, via Wikipedia. Photograph of New York on 9/11: National Park Service, PD, via Wikipedia.

Bias on the internet is a form of self-imposed stupidity. I’m an expert on this larger subject. I’ve done it a lot. The nice thing is, anyone can change simply by deciding to change. Ego makes it painful to change, so that has to tell you something about ego. It’s not the real you. It’s not your identity, but a false identity that gets in the way.

Ego is fear and all other forms of self-concern. Ego is “me” separate from everyone else.

The problem in today’s world is that there are some unscrupulous people who know how to play ego like a symphony. They murder 2,977 in New York and Northern Virginia and move all of civilization in a drastically different direction. Part of their slick trick was blaming it on Muslims.

Bias on the Internet—Your Taxes Hard at Work

The CIA had their Operation Mockingbird. Taxpayers have been paying for their own stupidity or dumbing down.

In early February 1981, President Reagan asked CIA Director William Casey what he thought the goal of the agency should be. Casey replied, “We’ll know our disinformation program is complete when everything the American public believes is false.”

Each individual who ridicules someone else is revealing an active bias which contributes to the demise of civilization. Sound harsh? All it takes is 7 Billion people each taking one step backward to have all of us be immensely closer to oblivion. That’s teamwork, in a twisted sense.

David Rockefeller, in his Memoirs, confessed with pride to having conspired against the best interests of the United States. With more than two dozen lobbyists for each federal legislator, working against the best interests of the United States takes treason to a new level. Several times, congressmen have tried to get laws passed which would effectively censor the internet—SOPA, PIPA, CISPA and now the TPP. The tactic we’ve been unwittingly paying for is one of transferring power from elected legislators to unaccountable individuals for which there is no oversight. Students of history will recognize that the same thing happened in 1913 when the power to make money in America was transferred from Congress to the private Federal Reserve System of private banks.

With every product or service purchased from a corporation, every citizen is contributing to their own enslavement or death. This becomes clearer when you realize that the one ingredient common to all corporations is the attitude of selfishness. And psychopaths are the most effectively selfish people on the world.

Bias on the Internet—Wikipedia Style

Bias on the internet: Namib desert after rain.
There’s so much bias on the internet, I created my own climate website to counter those prejudices. Life springs forth in the Namib Desert after a rain. Rain can be more frequent with global warming, because there is more water vapor from warmth’s evaporation. Photo: Hans Stieglitz (CC BY-SA 3.0) via

I’ve been a minor contributor to Wikipedia for several years. If ever I see a typographical error, or see an error in fact, I log in and correct it. Wikipedia is a pretty cool idea. So, it came as an annoying disturbance to read someone complaining about Wikipedia, showing disrespect for it as a source of information. At the very least, Wikipedia can give a person multiple sources of information in its lists of references.

But the last couple of years, I’ve started to see what the critics have been saying. Because Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit, corruption of its viewpoint is a very real danger. I witnessed this on its treatment of the 9/11 topic. Wikipedia administrators will not let anyone make changes to the main 9/11 article without prior approval. Wikipedia has become a mouthpiece for the mainstream media and the government viewpoint on things. And when the government and mainstream media are both owned by the same psychopaths who perpetrated 9/11, this makes Wikipedia part of the problem.

On November 20, 2015, I noticed a problem in one Wikipedia article on “Greenhouse and icehouse Earth.” The article quoted one source saying that the Holocene might last for another 50,000 years, based on Milankovitch cycles. This one idea is interesting and remains a possibility, but I had read another article that provided a different possibility—that the Holocene was already overdue to end. I added the following text with the appropriate reference.

On the other hand, one study states that interglacials of the current Ice Age tend to be around 11,000 years long, and the Holocene interglacial “has already lasted somewhere between 17,000 calendar years and 11,500 calendar years.”

My text and citation lasted ten minutes. Within ten minutes someone else had reverted my change back to the original.

My reason for adding the change was, “Added reference to W.S. Broecker article indicating possible short-term end to Holocene.” Someone else named William M. Connolley reverted my change because, “accurate, but very old and in theis [sic] context, misleading).”

I wanted to see what would happen if I simply put my change back. My reason, “Old facts are never out of date. Age is irrelevant. Context is very relevant for glaciation return.)” My reference was from 1998, yet the article already had other references from not only 1998, but also 1992. Old? Some data is never “old.” Some data can be replaced by newer, more refined findings, but that was not the stated issue.

This time, my change lasted for several hours. The same person reverted my change, giving his reasons as “same reasons as before.”

If I had nothing else to do in my life, it might prove interesting to discuss this change with Mr. Connolley and to help him see the logic of my position. But for writing that might persist on the internet for mere minutes, it hardly seems worth it.

Instead of contributing to the slippery, elusive slope of Wikipedia, I decided to create my own climate website, Global Warmth Blog.

Bias on the Internet—Science by Ridicule?

While doing research on climate and sea level rise, I came across a forum where Dr. Mörner, an expert in sea level, was mentioned in a derogatory way. Someone mentioned that Dr. Mörner was into dowsing and that this simple fact was all they needed to turn off any mention of the good doctor. Wikipedia maintains their encyclopedic style, but with carefully placed venom. Others ridiculed him, so it’s okay for you to ridicule him and to forget all about his expert knowledge of sea level rise. Rather than make it about the facts of his knowledge, the focus is on the man—ad hominem—a logical fallacy.

Dowsing? That does sound strange. To anyone with only a grounding in science, it’s hard to see a connection with reality. How can dowsing possibly be real? Dowsing is supposed to be a method of finding water by holding a stick while walking across the land in search of water. How can two branches coming together to a point have any ability to detect water?

But everyone who ridicules Dr. Mörner for it likely never studied dowsing, never wrote a paper on it, never did experiments in it, and likely never even tried it. This kind of ridicule I call “unsupported dismissiveness.” It’s a subjective bias with no resemblance to real science. Remember? Science is supposed to be unbiased.

If you’ve followed my writing for awhile, you might remember me talking about the big bias stuck in the middle of science—skepticism. The very paradigm of standard operating basis for science is itself a source of immense bias. This may come as a shock to most scientists and even to most laymen. But just look at the definition. In fact, several definitions of the word include the term “doubt.” You can’t get more biased than that.

Okay, just so your cognitive dissonance doesn’t go critical, the preferred paradigm of science is restraint and humility, not skepticism. Restraint merely means no action until all the data is in. Even then, conclusions could be wrong, but using proper critical thinking in analyzing the data, the conclusions have a far better chance of being right. Humility is the attitude that “I don’t know” or “I will let reality tell me, rather than me use my own ideas.” Skepticism, on the other hand, starts with a rejection—a doubt. All too frequently, this doubt comes with a heavy dose of arrogance—a subjective “know-it-all” attitude.

Rather than ridiculing someone for their beliefs in something we don’t understand, we should look at the data they present and take each piece of data for what it is worth.

Bias on the Internet—Prejudice and Fear

I’ve seen a lot of people ridiculing Muslims, lumping them all in one homogenous group. All Muslims do _______. But do they really? Are all Muslims terrorists. Absolutely not. Using the same logic, we could say that humans did the things of which Muslims were accused, and all humans are thus guilty, so condemn all humans. Not very logical.

Christians are becoming more un-Christian-like, saying that they would never accept refugees in their state. I even read of one of my cousins doing this. We need to use wisdom, but fearing all refugees because a few bad apples were violent is not only not logical, it is anti-Christian.

The power behind our corrupt governments wants us to fear and to lump people into easy-to-manage groups. The wise approach is to learn how to read people and their egos, then to decide based on the “fruit” they bear. We need to resist the urge to react, for reacting, instead of thinking, is the height of feeblemindedness and insanity.

One survey found, in the last year or so, that a vast majority of Americans approve of the CIA torturing prisoners. I wonder how true it is. Does a majority really feel this way, or is it the Corporatocracy making stuff up to make people think a certain way? Whatever the truth of the majority, that doesn’t matter. We can only change our own individual selves.

In order to eliminate bias on the internet, we need to start with ourselves. We need to stop being prejudiced, reactionary and dull-witted. We need to be humble and observant. We need to remain willing to give up yesterday’s truths for improved versions. We need to be willing to have been wrong all along and to give up lies for truths. Only with this malleability and a hunger for real truth can we hope to improve.

This article was originally published 2015:1218 on

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s