Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again

Image representing Wikipedia as depicted in Cr...

Image via CrunchBase

Apparently Mr. Connolley has edited 5428 Wikipedia articles, most about climate. Die Kalte Sonne:

Unbelievable but true: The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change was a member of the UK Green Party and openly sympathized with the views of the controversial IPCC. So it was not a referee, but the 12th Man of the IPCC team.

I’m not sure how accurate the translation is, but it suggests he was somehow part of the IPCC “short list” team. See it here at Die Kalte Sonne via this Google Translate link:

http://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.kaltesonne.de%2F%3Fp%3D7858

With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.

About these ads

187 thoughts on “Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again

  1. Translate works well for it, also a good piece. Wiki is a indoctrination trap for anyone not well versed in the scientific method and assumes the logical fallacy of the argument from authority is best argument to make when dealing with science.

    Far too often opinion is listed as fact and facts are removed because they don’t fit the proper agenda.

  2. Nothing surprises me as regards that weasel (sic) character! Wall, first and coming revolution spring immediately to mind!

  3. In the area of climate science Wikipedia is virtual worthless , as they let Connolley and his sock puppets run wild and lose . And not for the first time , the message is when using Wikipedia remember the salt .
    It would not be a surprise to find the IPCC takes him on , as a ‘true believer ‘ that is the only qualification he needs to be consider by them as ‘worthy ‘ .

  4. Wikipedia is OK for topics that are non-controversial and not the focus of popular opinion. But as soon as you look at an entry on something about which you have some knowledge but upon which opinions run wide, then its completely shite. I am thinking of such topics as orbit the field of psychology overlapping with pop-psych.

    The entries on some topics are totally laughable. Like something emerging out of watching a really poor B movie.

    What is particularly pernicious is where, as in this case, the editing is cunningly contrived so as to conform to the pattern of deception otherwise prevalent in the popular media.The end result then becomes congruous, not laughable but disturbingly close to an Orwellian re-writing of “reality”.

  5. With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.
    ————————–

    It’s the KOCH BROTHERS again!
    No, wait…

    Oh I remember now, those are the guys who are supposed to be paying me.

  6. Got the gist with Google translate. Except for “Editierauflagen” (editing pads??).

    And what a paean of praise to William Connelley is the Wiki article on William Connelley. What sterling work He has done for the planet; what eulogies have been pronounced upon Him by the Great and the Good; what grave injustices have been perpetrated upon Him by mere Lilliputian opponents when clearly He should be totally absolved from any infantile accusations of mischievous rewriting and editing.

    Apparently and sadly, Wiki just didn’t recognise Him as the Supreme Expert that He was and is, and gave false credence to some irritating numbskulls who are not fit to read His exalted words of wisdom.

    Breathes there a mere man, or a demigod? I think we should be told. Possibly by William Connelley in Wikipedia.

  7. “Es war also gar kein Schiedsrichter, sondern der 12. Mann der IPCC-Mannschaft.”
    “This wasn’t a referee at all, but an extra man on the IPCC team.

    “Ein Schiedsrichter” is a soccer referee. A soccer team consists of 11 players. So if the referee is biased towards one team, you refer to him as that team’s 12th man.

  8. Oh, bother, a shill! Say it ain’t so!

  9. You just have to be impressed. This is straight out of the cold war. Jimmy Wales should be apoplectic

  10. “With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.”

    That can’t be true…only those who question CAGW would be paid to constantly edit wiki and to flood forums with posts…

    LOL!

  11. Thanks to Connolley and his sock puppets climate science is one of those areas on Wikipedia that simply cannot be trusted. Its happened before on other subjects due to allowing some people effective editorial control on areas then they have earned no such right . And its one reason why anything on Wikipedia needs to be complemented with salt .

    But no I don’t think his being paid , I think he is a fanatic that sees themselves in a fight ‘against evil’ where anything they do is justified for the greater good . Such people can be very dangerous and their more than willing to give up everything in their ‘fight’

    Its would not be a surprise to find him working with the IPCC has his total commitment to ‘the cause ‘ ,which justifies its very existence, is all they want .

  12. I’ve run into this before on a much smaller scale with Wikipedia. Anybody can edit an article and the changes stand unless someone challenges it. So a small number of activists wtih time on their hands can alter existing entries with effectively no controls.

  13. “With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.”

    How is that any different than “…it makes you wonder if Mr. Watts is employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task”?

    18,320,338 people have opened Wikipedia accounts. Many people do enjoy it.

    REPLY: The difference is that I don’t try to change the meaning of or history of reference works on a daily basis. And, no I’m not in anyone’s employ in what I write or allow to be published by guest authors at WUWT. – Anthony

  14. Were the people controlling the Wiki-bloody-media Foundation at all interested in maintaining the credibility of “The Free Encyclopedia,” they’d drop the banhammer on William Connolley and all his climate fraudster conniving cohorts and make that shutdown absolute and irrevocable.

    But they’re overwhelmingly in the Watermelon bag, aren’t they?

  15. In the Kopp article, it is untrue that Connolley has been “withdrawn from circulation”. Last October William M. Connolley attacked the English Wikipedia page dedicated to the late climatologist Marcel Leroux. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/death-by-stoat/#more-72186

    Later, Halpern and Connolley led a concerted charge against Gerhard Kramm, who responded to their attack with scorn. As a result of sanctions in an earlier Wikipedia affair, Connolley had been limited to general climate articles and grave digging, that is only editing the pages of dead scientists, so Halpern was brought to the rescue to lead the charge against Kramm. Kramm’s page was of course deleted a few weeks later. Every time Connolley needs some help in his crusade, there is always some willing hand to do the dirty job, from all over the globe, Edimburgh, Seattle…

    Always on alert, one can effectively wonder if this executor of Wikideeds is an all green altruist… Perhaps the answer lies in the unpublished climategate emails? Let’s not forget that the main donors of Wikipedia include the same US billionaires who have been funding the green disruption in Canada…

  16. As I recall Connelley had about 3500 edits to his ‘credit’ when he got a temporary ban for abusing his admin position on Wikipedia.

    At 5300 now it would appear he has not eased up his pace and I don’t doubt for a minute that he is being just as partisan and bigotted in his editing and using his admin powers to trump other editors.

    At one time he was a Green Party candidate in his consituency of Cambridge, though he did not advertise his political activity on his Wikipedia user page. He just presented himself as a climate scientist to give himself even more supposed authority in pushing his political beliefs as scientific fact on WP.

    Last time I checked his claim to scientific fame was being co-author on a couple of papers attempting to model ocean currents around Antarctica when he was working for the B.A.S.

    I read the papers which amounted to an explanation that they had not managed to reproduce the behaviour of the currents they aiming to model.

    Apparently he thinks being a failure at climate science means he is qualified to over ride the edits made by others. If they argue back he bans them from further edits.

    He must be living from some income so perhaps Peter Gleick could be employed to find out who his secret donor is for us.

  17. I’ve had experience going up against Connelly in Wiki. I had changed references to Global Warming to “The Theory of Global Warming” and it was impossible to get that past slick Willie. If you look back at the early days of REALCLIMATE they list Connelly as their “gatekeeper” for the Wiki Project in some terms or other. I remember there being commentary about it.

  18. This is insane. Robert Zubrin explains really well what we are up against. An excerpt:

    Antihumanism is a belief system which holds that humans are destroyers [whose] activities, aspirations, and numbers must be severely constrained… In the 1970s there was a global cooling trend going on. So the antihumanists said “look, there is global cooling, which is being driven by industry.. Put us in control.” Then in the 1980s the climate began to warm, so they said “look, there is global warming, which is being driven by industry.. Put us in control.” The problem is always different, the solution is always the same [de-industrialization, and:] – put them in control. Its not about weather, it’s about power.

    See the full 12 minute video: http://www.nationalreview.com/planet-gore/339257/robert-zubrin-why-we-need-more-carbon-greg-pollowitz

  19. “It does sound very much like a day job.”

    It’s not a job at all. It’s a symptom. I have worked extensively with the mentally ill. This type of obsession and compulsion is common and at times is a bridge to psychosis.

  20. Hey Thomas, please read their disclaimer “1.Due to a bug, the edit counts reported by Wikipedia are not always reliable for editors with high edit counts and may show extreme discrepancies in some cases.
    2.Some editors use automated tools (bots and assisted systems) capable of fixing many simple errors per minute (spelling, links, etc.), or that place many informational and other notices in a short time, while others work on tasks where these tools are not useful, such as content creation and reworking, manual copyright review, and editorial dispute resolution.
    In other words, they have no clue!

  21. I had a brief run-in with Connolley on Wiki over the subject of Chaos Theory.
    There was a line which stated that “Chaotic systems could be seen in such phenomena as weather”. I remember that it used to say “weather and climate” but the reference to climate had been removed.
    So I added “and climate” back in.
    Within half a day it had been changed by Con-man.
    So I decided that maybe the reference which backed it must be about weather only. So I looked at it. It was a paper about chaos and climate, not even a mention of weather!
    So I changed it back with an explanation about the reference.
    Within a couple of hours the con-man has removed the whole reference with a note “I looked at the article. It wasn’t very good”.
    So it had been good enough to exist for at least two years when it was incorrectly referencing ‘weather’ but when it was changed to correctly reference ‘climate’ it suddenly was not good enough.
    I suggest we work the con-man to death by all of us piling into Wiki and making correct changes to articles he guards.

  22. Much as I reference and enjoy this site, it can just as daftie as those sites you are at odds with. Mr C has a blog, talk to him about it there, save your space for what scaremongering iMessrs Stern und Gore et al are chundering out.

  23. Using the Wikipedia remember, believe nothing that one reads or hears without verifying it onself unless it congruent with ones preexisting Weltanschauung (this latter clause excuses those who cannot read it).

  24. One would have thought that an “editor” deleting 500 articles and banning 2000 contributors would raise some attention as to their bona fides….and it wouldn’t take long to find the Green Party affiliation. But it is also a prime example that can be referenced to affirm that the CAGW side of the argument actively stifles opposing opinions and is zealous in spreading their version of the truth. If you knew this was religious zeal rather than science, would you pay any attention?

  25. I have noticed an interesting development on the Wiki.

    Some months ago there was a push for people to ‘believe the consensus’, and a lot of us replied by citing instances where the consensus was later shown to be faulty – Piltdown Man, Alfred Wegener and Marshall of stomach ulcer fame were often quoted.

    A little while ago I had occasion to look up the Piltdown Man entry, and I noted that it had been rewritten to make it look as if the fraud was a minor glitch, and only believed by a few deluded souls. Apparently, Piltdown man was no longer an instance where the scientific establishment got it wrong. I looked up Marshall as well, and found that his entry had been altered to read that he ‘claimed’ that he had been suppressed by the medical establishment, but that this was really proper caution, and not an instance of an incorrect consensus.

    This sort of political history rewriting is proceeding through every aspect of the Wikipedia. It is no longer just controversial issues which are at risk – a lot of collateral damage is being caused…

  26. Wikipedia is a joke so far as anything regarding climate science is concerned. If you click on the ‘Talk’ tab of any climate related entry Connolley will be all over the thread like rash. It should be embarassing for Jimmy Wales. This is why Wikipedia’s reputation is so poor that even quiz setters won’t use it.

  27. Thomas says:
    January 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm
    There is a list in Wikipedia on which editors have been most active:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_Wikipedians_by_number_of_edits

    Connolley is at place 597. Anyone wanting to come up with conspiracy theories that no one can do these many edits without being paid by someone also have to who funds the other 597. The most prolific editor has more than 20 times as many edits…
    =====================================================================
    I doubt anyone pays them.
    Since living in their parents basement or garage attic is rent free.

    It seems at least 597 people have no social life.

  28. George Orwell in his book 1984 imagined a leftist state powerful enough to edit history. Technology has surpassed Orwell and now the capability to edit history is within reach of anyone with an internet connection. Leftists still have a drive to edit history to suit themselves. I doubt that Connelly is paid (directly). I think he is a True Believer, per Hoffer.

  29. “Anyone wanting to come up with conspiracy theories that no one can do these many edits without being paid by someone also have to who funds the other 597.”

    Not really, however they would have to determine how much time was spent on the edits. The amount that others have contributed is irrelevant as to how much time one of them has spent.

  30. I particularly noticed this comment in the full article;

    “Firstly because this campaign is hardly grown solely on Connollys crap”

  31. 5428 different articles, or 5428 total edits? Maybe he is having an editing war with someone and has changed the same articles back to his way many times.

  32. Jon Sanders:

    I write to make a knit-pick of your post at January 30, 2013 at 3:16 pm which includes

    George Orwell in his book 1984 imagined a leftist state powerful enough to edit history.

    No, he wrote about a rightist state in ‘1984’.

    He wrote about a leftist state in his parody of the USSR titled ‘Animal Farm’.

    Like me, Orwell was a left wing socialist, and ‘1984’ and ‘Animal Farm’ were warnings about totalitarianism. This matters because the AGW-scare is promoted by totalitarians of the left and the right.

    Totalitarianism is a great evil.

    Richard

  33. In writing a short Wikipedia article on New Zealand Climate Science I referred to Professor Bellamy as a renowned botanist, which of course he is. That bastard Connolley changed that to television presenter.

  34. cui bono says:
    January 30, 2013 at 1:43 pm

    And what a paean of praise to William Connelley is the Wiki article on William Connelley. What sterling work He has done for the planet; what eulogies have been pronounced upon Him by the Great and the Good; what grave injustices have been perpetrated upon Him by mere Lilliputian opponents when clearly He should be totally absolved from any infantile accusations of mischievous rewriting and editing.

    As said earlier by another:

    “What a piece of work is a man, how noble in reason, how
    infinite in faculties, in form and moving how express and
    admirable, in action how like an angel, in apprehension how like
    a god!”

  35. That’s the same William Connolley associated with the giant UK Ofcom complaint lodged against “The Great Global Warming Swindle” video in 2007: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/7517444.stm

    ” … The morning after the broadcast, I posted on the blog of the British Antarctic Survey’s scientist William Connolley, [ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/04/the-great-global-warming-swind/#comment-3433 ] saying that I wanted to complain to Ofcom and asking whether any scientists could help me write a comprehensive complaint. Nathan Rive [ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/04/the-great-global-warming-swind/#comment-3529 ] and Brian Jackson [ http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2007/03/04/the-great-global-warming-swind/#comment-3485%5D responded to my post and became my two co-lead authors. William Connolley also agreed to peer review it. … ”

    The main Ofcom complaint author Dave Rado acknowledges no less than two people from Desmogblog, Brendan DeMelle & Kevin Grandia, at this page http://www.ofcomswindlecomplaint.net/fullcomplaint/p12.htm#Bottom , along with Kert Davies of Greenpeace USA (neé Ozone Action, the place I like to call the epicenter of the smear of skeptic climate scientists in my various articles).

  36. richardscourtney says:
    January 30, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    “Like me, Orwell was a left wing socialist, and ’1984′ and ‘Animal Farm’ were warnings about totalitarianism. This matters because the AGW-scare is promoted by totalitarians of the left and the right.”

    You nailed it right there. There is no difference between the far left and the far right. They are the same beast.

  37. With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.

    The answer is, of course. Dig deep enough and you find the links to Geogre Soros. Soros and his pal oligarchs stand to make trillions of dollars from the consequences of climate alarmism.

  38. I bet if someone told his mum,she`d give `im a right ding round the ear.
    Probably send him straight to his room and ground him.
    If he doesn`t smarten up and fly straight she should take his playstation away!
    Honestly! It can`t be easy disciplining a moody teen.
    Maybe his family and friends could do an `intervention` to get him out of the basement and into a pair of pants.

  39. Anthony, you have already posted about Connolley editing 5,428+ Wikipedia articles in 2009,

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/wikibullies-at-work-the-national-post-exposes-broad-trust-issues-over-wikipedia-climate-information/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/19/more-on-wikipedia-and-connolley-hes-been-canned-as-a-wiki-administrator/

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/10/14/willia-connolley-now-climate-topic-banned-at-wikipedia/

    The way I read it was that Connolley helped get the IPCC’s message out by editing Wikipedia and their reference to him being on the “team” was sarcasm.

  40. My comment may have wound up in the spam bin. It was:

    I think it is important that the Germans are waking up to the fraud, and to the degree they have been duped. I can’t imagine they, as a people, take kindly to being led to their own destruction. It is difficult for outsiders to conceive the horrors their leaders have led them to, over the past 99 years, and the degree to which their loyalty and patriotism has been abused and wickedly perverted. Any person, such as Connelley, who thinks it a small matter to lead them down such a path yet again is fooling themselves, and will likely awaken an unexpected backlash.

  41. Connolley is at it again and somehow retains an ability to edit Climate Change related wikipedia pages.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley&offset=&limit=500&target=William+M.+Connolley

    You can clearly see who is in control of the Global Warming page:

    http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=Global_warming

    FYI: Stephan Schulz, KimDabelsteinPetersen are minions of Connolley.

    This is a good write up on Connolley’s behavior on Wikipedia,

    http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

  42. It might sound funny, but it was the biased Wikipedia that helped me to understand what sort of crap the AGW concept is. I started with the “global warming” article where they honestly said that “global warming” was a statistical average thing, which meant it was not global per definition. This was an indication of a hoax to me. Second, it made intermediately crap out of all those “attributions” like ice melt on Greenland or draughts somewhere etc. It is absolutely absurd already on the junior high school level to maintain that global average can cause anything local.

  43. Every successful organization eventually gets hijacked by zealots. The interesting aspect of Wikipedia’s case is that you can see it happening on an article-by-article basis: we’ve probably all had the experience of trying to balance an article (in my case, DRM) only to discover that the article’s imbalance is ferociously guarded by a pack of unsleeping dogs. I love Wikipedia, and hope it can last a long time before it succumbs completely.

  44. S-witch, and the science fits.
    Most things in life can be explained with Money Python

    BEDEMIR: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
    VILLAGER #2: Burn!
    CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
    BEDEMIR: And what do you burn apart from witches?
    VILLAGER #1: More witches!
    VILLAGER #2: Wood!
    BEDEMIR: So, why do witches burn?
    [pause]
    VILLAGER #3: B–… ’cause they’re made of wood…?
    BEDEMIR: Good!
    CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah…
    BEDEMIR: So, how do we tell whether she is made of wood?
    VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of her.
    BEDEMIR: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
    VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
    BEDEMIR: Does wood sink in water?
    VILLAGER #1: No, no.
    VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
    VILLAGER #1: Throw her into the pond!
    CROWD: The pond!
    BEDEMIR: What also floats in water?
    VILLAGER #1: Bread!
    VILLAGER #2: Apples!
    VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
    VILLAGER #1: Cider!
    VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
    VILLAGER #1: Cherries!
    VILLAGER #2: Mud!
    VILLAGER #3: Churches — churches!
    VILLAGER #2: Lead — lead!
    ARTHUR: A duck.
    CROWD: Oooh.
    BEDEMIR: Exactly! So, logically…,
    VILLAGER #1: If… she.. weighs the same as a duck, she’s made of wood.
    BEDEMIR: And therefore–?
    VILLAGER #1: A witch!
    CROWD: A witch!
    BEDEMIR: We shall use my larger scales!
    [yelling]
    BEDEMIR: Right, remove the supports!
    [whop]
    [creak]
    CROWD: A witch! A witch!
    WITCH: It’s a fair cop.
    CROWD: Burn her! Burn! [yelling]

  45. richardscourtney says:
    January 30, 2013 at 3:54 pm

    “No, he wrote about a rightist state in ’1984′.”

    You mean by rightist state stalin is a moderate right hitler’s right wing?

    “Like me, Orwell was a left wing socialist”

    Not really Orwell like most people of the day believed in eugenics and socialism and a host of other things because they were indoctrinated into that belief system. He steadily moved back to the center and even fairly rightwing toward the end. Thats the science definition of rightwing not the “stalin is a moderate” political definition.

    “Totalitarianism is a great evil.”

    No collectivism is the great evil which is totalitarianism/authoritarianism both of which are leftwing.

  46. @richard and @Russ: totalitarians of the left and the right
    I think political-economic philosophies are described using an improper coordinate system.

    A Cylindrical coordinate system could be far more useful. “Left and Right” are really “West” and “East” respectively. Keep going west and keep going east and you find the very same totalitarians waiting for you.

    The vertical dimension of the coordinate system is degree of private ownership.

    So, using an arbitrary origin of
    (0,1) as pure capitalism
    (0,0) becomes total anarchy, no government, with no concept of private anything.
    (180,1) is Fascism – complete private property, but total government control over it.
    (180,0) is Communism – collective ownership and total control by government.

    The two paths from 0 to 180 (west and east) have to be given some definition. Arbitrarily, toward 90 favors rule of men, 270 favors rule of law
    (270,1) is Mercantilism.
    (90,1) is Protectionism
    (90,0) is Socialism
    (270,0) is Mercantilism with the government owning all assets… = Colonialism?
    (45,0.5) = Tribalism.
    (315, 0.5) = Feudalism

    Could this transformation of the political landscape be a possible answer to why political and economic discussions wind up “going in circles”?

  47. I thought we had finally gotten rid of Connolley for good myself. Sigh…

    Anthony said: “With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.”

    Fortunately, or unfortunately, no; all it takes is a pathological personality. At this point Wikipedia does not have an effective method of dealing with pathological personalities who lack the self-restraint to restrain their enthusiasms [or psychotisms] and confine their work to the level of their personal competence or exclude their own biases. This shortcoming, and it is a major one, is Wikipedia’s greatest hurdle to overcome. If we don’t get over it, eventually it will kill the project. On the other hand an entire global civilization is learning to edit an encyclopedia. This is no small thing. One might expect there to be some problems at first.

    I am a [very modest] Wikipedia editor, if you were to stumble across my own User Page you would discover that I have edited several hundred pages – mostly very minor edits. You would also find this statement:

    Quite simply put, massively collaborative projects such as Wikipedia are the way Humanity will do things in the future. If you wish to be part of Humanity’s future you must learn to participate and to contribute in what ever way your resources and talents allow and your inclinations direct you.

    Using Wikipedia is a valid form of participation in the Project, but is not enough. What is required of you is three things, your: Time, Treasure, and Talent. Sending in some of your hard earned treasure to support the Wikimedia foundation is a valid form of contributing, but is not sufficient to fulfill the obligation to contribute; your time and your talent is also required.

    The thought I will leave you all with is this: all human knowledge WILL eventually be aggregated into a single digital database, who do you want to hold the keys? YOU or Gooogle???

    Time to get to work.

    W^3

  48. All one needs to know about Connolley is described at Wikipedia, under his species namesake, the Stoat:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stoat?

    [excerpts]

    It is listed among the 100 “world’s worst invasive species”

    The stoat has large anal scent glands …. When attacked or aggressive, the stoat excretes the contents of its anal glands, producing a strong, musky odour produced by several sulphuric compounds, which is distinct from that of least weasels.

    Stoats are not monogamous, with litters often being of mixed paternity

    The stoat is an opportunistic predator, which moves rapidly and checks every available burrow or crevice for food.

    The stoat is a usually silent animal, but can produce a range of sounds similar to those of the least weasel. Kits produce a fine chirping noise. Adults trill excitedly before mating, and indicate submission through quiet trilling, whining and squealing. When nervous, the stoat hisses, and will intersperse this with sharp barks or shrieks and prolonged screeching when aggressive.
    Aggressive behaviour in stoats is categorised in these forms:
    Noncontact approach, which is sometimes accompanied by a threat display and vocalisation from the approached animal
    Forward thrust, accompanied by a sharp shriek, which is usually done by stoats defending a nest or retreat site
    Nest occupation, when a stoat appropriates the nesting site of a weaker individual
    Kleptoparasitism, in which a dominant stoat appropriates the kill of a weaker one, usually after a fight
    Submissive stoats express their status by avoiding higher-ranking animals, fleeing from them or making whining or squealing sounds.

  49. Stephen Rasey says:
    January 30, 2013 at 7:01 pm

    “complete private property, but total government control over it.”

    The more the government controls something the more it owns it. Fascism under your definition is simply impossible. Too truly own something you must control it. To truly control something you must own it.

    If the government has control over something then they dictate who owns its, when they own it and how they own it. That means the person who owns it is simply in name only since the government can give or take it away any time it feels like it.

  50. Well, there must be one thing that really burns Connolley – that RealClimate and WUWT both have wiki pages, while his own blog is listed as a footnote under his own page.

    Why doesn’t he help out his peers – make pages about Tamino’s Open Mind and others?

    Must be pretty bad if even wiki doesn’t recognize several “prominent” bloggers…

  51. It seems to me that contributing to Wikipedia under the current conditions, where gatekeepers such as Connolley can edit and re-write as they wish, regardless of the truth, and ban those who disagree with him, is exactly what educated honest people should not do. Participation gives the whole enterprise a validity which it doesn’t deserve, while the owners refuse to ban – entirely and forever – those editors so grossly in breach of the principles on which it should be founded. There should have been no come-back for Connolley and his ilk, once caught and condemned in his jiggery pokery.

    The list of biased and dishonest edits regarding climate science, including banning living scientists from correcting matters of fact in entries about themselves, is so egregious as to be a matter of the greatest academic scandal. Meanwhile children are encouraged to use the Wiki as a primary source of reference, and believe what they read there is gospel.

    How anyone can support such an enterprise with their time or their money is beyond me. I would be very glad to see it fail, though I fear it’s now too big ever to vanish. I do use it for things like checking on movies, and for some historical topics; but on any subject with even the slightest political implication, it’s not to be trusted.

  52. Caleb – it would not be the first nor the second time in history that group-think has made the Germans out to be fools. There’s no reason to think the Germans of today are like the Germans of the 1900’s, but it does make you go “hmmmm” sometimes to think how easily some cultures can be repeatedly duped.

  53. Another online ‘pedia should be developed by tweaking Wikipedia’s guidelines to allow side-by-side opposing views along with running debates. Unfortunately, such a format could easily devolve into meaningless arguments about angels dancing on pins and needles. –maybe that’s when editors with authority could step in and apply rules of proper argumentation to keep things focused.

  54. Being the “12th man on the field” is a soccer reference alluding to a crooked referee who, in addition to the 11 players of one team shifts the balance by making decision in favor of “his” team while pretending to be the official.

  55. dp says:
    January 30, 2013 at 10:18 pm
    “Caleb – it would not be the first nor the second time in history that group-think has made the Germans out to be fools. There’s no reason to think the Germans of today are like the Germans of the 1900′s, but it does make you go “hmmmm” sometimes to think how easily some cultures can be repeatedly duped.”

    Well, when I look at the US, MSNBC, CNN, David Lettermann or this Stewart person from the Daily Show sure make me go hmmm… THEY HAVE VIEWERS? While we’re talking about duping.

  56. The 12th man is the reserve player on a cricket team.
    They can’t bat, it’s often referred to as “carrying the drinks.”
    So you may not see them but they are definitely part of the team.
    ie. Not the Umpire/Referee.

  57. dp says:
    January 30, 2013 at 10:18 pm

    “Caleb – it would not be the first nor the second time in history that group-think has made the Germans out to be fools. ”

    True, but the IPCC duped the UK, Australia, the US, Norway, Sweden, Denmark,….

    Well, that is, a small group in each of these countries decided to dupe the rest.

    The rest didnt care much, or bother much with it all, until leaders started gathering in big meetings, trying to take complete control [of] the energy usage in all countries. Then it fell apart. Climategate helped.

    So now, like in Norway, it isnt that we are duped, its just that in the western democracies nobody cares anymore whenever a tax is raised. And another business is moved to China.

  58. richardscourtney, Jon Sanders:- I assume you did not do 1984 in school. .
    It was about post war Britian. Which is why 1948 was the original proposed title. Orwells was left, but worried by with the abuse of power, particularly by the left. Naturally the Stalinist left had a problem with this. Big Brother was a 1940’s nick name for a UK labour MP. Ernest Bevin?. We know this as he did radio interviews and explaining his work.
    Room 101 was his office in the BBC during the war. He specialisted in propaganda during WW2.

  59. Thanks Kaboom, it’s an expression in cricket too, but seeing it’s German you must be right. The 12’th man in cricket I believe is an emergency, usually not of the greatest calibre.

  60. isabelle says:
    January 30, 2013 at 2:50 pm

    Much as I reference and enjoy this site, it can [be?] just as daftie as those sites you are at odds with. Mr C has a blog, talk to him about it there, save your space for what scaremongering iMessrs Stern und Gore et al are chundering out.

    Thanks, Isabelle. The first problem is that Connelley is doing as much scaremongering as either Stern and Gore are doing, perhaps more … so why would we not want to discuss that here? All of them are bad news alarmists, all of them need opposing.

    Regarding his blog, I refuse to visit or comment on blogs whose owners censor valid scientific opinion. These include “Open Mind”, “RealClimate”, and whatever Connolley’s blog might be called. I wouldn’t raise his page-view count by one, don’t have the time, don’t have the interest.

    Finally, you assume that we haven’t addressed Señor Connolley right here on WUWT. Occasionally he comes over here to try to sell his alarmism. Of course, since he can’t control the conversation here, he doesn’t hang around much.

    [UPDATE: William Connolley has informed me, in his usual unpleasant manner, that he is banned from the site. I was unaware of that, and so I wholly retract and apologize for my interpretation of why he has not been seen around here. The rest stands, however. -w.]

    You can find his junk with a search. So there’s no need for me to go to his blog to tell him what I think about his actions. For example, here’s my comment from his ill-advised appearance on one of my threads, where he made the laughable claim that the climate models are not tuned to replicate the historical surface temperature given certain inputs:

    William M. Connolley says:
    January 24, 2012 at 2:44 pm

    1. You take a model which has been carefully tuned to replicate the past using inputs a, b, c, d, and e.

    No, that isn’t how GCMs are built. It is funny, that as soon as you stray away from the stuff you know about, you go hopelessly wrong.

    Ooooh, William doesn’t think that climate models are tuned, excuuuuse me! If this was Wikipedia, he’d just erase my statements …

    William, you are an unpleasant man who has made a life out of erasing any opposition to your views from the Wikipedia pages on climate science. You did it in such a slimy way that Wikipedia finally threw you out on your keister.

    Let me be clear. I do not like seeing you on my threads. You are a wrecker and a destroyer, not a builder or a teacher. Dissension and disagreement follow you like a bad smell.

    I advise everyone, this man is a danger. Google his name, he is quite infamous. He is quite happy to do just about any underhanded thing to advance AGW alarmism. There has rarely been a clearer case of Noble Cause Corruption, as throughout his whole skeevy list of actions that finally cost him his title at Wikipedia, while ruthlessly squelching opposition views, he has always seen himself as being the white knight crusader for saving the planet, and devil take the hindmost.

    William, you are so far in the wrong that it is doubtful that you could ever get back in the right. You are a dishonest, untrustworthy, and nasty person that has burnt all possible bridges. You can get back, but you’ll need to build the bridges.

    Now, I have no desire to ban you from here, that’s not my style. I would greatly prefer it if you talked about nothing but the science. It would be nice if you put a curb on your tongue and a muzzle on your insinuations, but if you want to be a jerk I wont stop you. I just wanted to let you know how I feel about your presence. It makes me want to put Vaporub on my upper lip.

    w.

    As you can see, I was gonna tell him how I really felt, but I held back …

    w.

  61. the original source of the article (Kopp) features also anti-vaccination articles and similar stuff. Just a thought.

  62. @Dodgy Geezer
    I was just looking up Marshall & the stomach ulcer business this morning for other reasons. The wikipedia article is definitely wrong. I also noticed that a 2004 Skeptical Inquirer article explaining away the phenomenon was high on the google search results: http://www.csicop.org/si/show/bacteria_ulcers_and_ostracism_h._pylori_and_the_making_of_a_myth/

    Kimball Atwood makes the case that Marshall’s discovery of H. Pylori was accepted right away. But, that’s not how I remember it. Is there some movement to say that the H. Pylori explanation was accepted right away?

    You could say the same thing for Galileo. His books were popular, relatively speaking. He had stargazing parties for friends. He was a professor at Padua, one of the great medieval schools. A minority of people who saw his work were unconvinced. Those people were the government inquisitors and other natural philosophers that didn’t want to be put in jail or give people cause to attack them. That’s all. The wikipedia article on Galileo is quite good in this respect, that Galileo’s ideas had some popularity in his time: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_Galilei

  63. sean.fr :

    Your post at January 30, 2013 at 11:32 pm says

    richardscourtney, Jon Sanders:- I assume you did not do 1984 in school. .
    It was about post war Britian. Which is why 1948 was the original proposed title. Orwells was left, but worried by with the abuse of power, particularly by the left. Naturally the Stalinist left had a problem with this. Big Brother was a 1940′s nick name for a UK labour MP. Ernest Bevin?. We know this as he did radio interviews and explaining his work.
    Room 101 was his office in the BBC during the war. He specialisted in propaganda during WW2.

    I lived through post-war Britain so did not need to “do 1984 in school”.

    Eric Arthur Blair (25 June 1903 – 21 January 1950) who wrote under the pen-name of George Orwell was – like me – a left wing socialist who opposed the evil of totalitarianism. That is why he went to Spain to fight against the fascists in the Spanish Civil War.

    If you want to know his views then read ‘The Road To Wigan Pier’.

    Yes, Orwell opposed abuse of power by left or right: like me, he was anti-totalitarian. But if you learned in school that Orwell was opposed to abuse of power “particularly by the left” then your teacher was very biased.

    Richard

  64. Just an observation about Mr Connelly (from his Wiki page and blogs), he no longer works for the BAS where he was a software engineer. So how did the ‘climate scientist’ label get attached? However anyone who has worked for any government agency in the UK knows you have plenty of time to persue personal interests (e.g. Wiki editing) during working hours. He now works for Cambridge Silicon Radio, a fabless chip maker, again as a software engineer. If his websites are a reflection of his software writing abilities I sure am glad he doesn’t work for me!

  65. I used to be a green party member and fully supportive of “green energy”. Then one day I read an article about “peak oil” on Wikipedia. I found it fascinating that oil could run out so quickly and even if the article was half true, I was sure anyone else interested in climate and energy would want to have a look … indeed it supported the need for wind power … so how on earth could anyone object.

    So, I added a link to the bottom of the global warming article on Wikipedia. Within seconds it had been deleted. So, I added it again. Again it was deleted. And being naive, I fell into Connolley’s most basic ploy and eventually when I edited the article again with an explanation I was immediately banned from Wikipedia.

    At first I thought, I had just strayed into a war between the “nice” guys and these horrible oil-funded lobbyists and the “nice” people had mistaken me for one of “them”. But eventually as I watched the way the articles were editing, I realised the “nice” guys were actually editing the articles 24/7. You couldn’t change anything on the article without it being reverted within minutes. That even well supported material for the “other” side was kept out by repeated and endless talk. E.g. I spent about a month on some topic I knew nothing about called the “hockey stick” trying to find a form of words that would be acceptable to the “nice” people to allow the fact it was being reported in the media to be included …. after all, it more than met the criteria to be included … even if it was “oil-funded lobbyist propaganda”.

    At the end of the month, I realised, that there was nothing I could do to find any words that were acceptable … it was not editing but censorship! There was no way on earth those like Connolley running Wikipedia were going to allow “hockey stick” (whatever it was) to get even a mention in “their” website.

    Indeed, there were several things which became clear:
    1. Those editing could get “peer reviewed” articles written purely to counter a “discussion in Wikipedia”. (In other words, it is extremely likely people like Michael Mann were the editors and/or people they consider their co-workers)
    2. It was clear “Wikipedia” was in collusion with Connolley.
    3. It was clear Connolley was not working alone … he was part of a well organised and well funded team.
    4. Sceptics (I forget the terminology then current) … were just a bunch of disorganised individuals who hadn’t a chance … all they had was their anger.
    5. None of the article was believable because almost any junk got in if it supported the viewpoint of Connolley’s team of editors and nothing got in if it didn’t … such as the fact their was a “hockey stick controversy”.

    At which point I said to myself: “what can I believe on global warming? I have to go and see the evidence for myself … The evidence CO2 caused the warming, and the evidence that there is harm”.

    AND WHEN I FOUND THERE WAS NONE or e.g. that it was a trivial matter to find benefits of warming but an impossible one to find anyone writing on global warming had considered the benefits …. I realised …. I realised I had no choice but to be a sceptic.

    And Connolley? When bankers manipulated the interest rate, it was a criminal offence. If you intentionally falsify the rate of global warming and lie about the evidence causing massive public loss … I’ve no doubt it is a serious criminal offence and he deserves to spend several years in jail.

  66. noaaprogrammer says: “Another online ‘pedia should be developed by tweaking Wikipedia’s guidelines to allow side-by-side opposing views along with running debates”.

    Like you I’ve also pondered how Wikipedia to be changed to live up to its own ideals. One of the big problems, is that the kind of people who give up their own time to write articles … are the kind of people who:
    1. Have a sense that people “ought to do something about …”
    2. Like to work in groups … so like “consensus”
    3. Tend to argue from authority … rather than look dispassionately at the facts.

    So, any wiki is always going to be over-subscribed by the type of editors who are most deluded by global warming. Indeed, it is almost inherent in the “public spiritedness” of those who contribute to a wiki – that they value “saving the planet” over the economic cost … indeed, they ignore the economic of their time writing the wiki … so why won’t they ignore the economic costs of “saving the planet”.

    So, I thought about trying to have separate pages as “for” and “against”. This might have gone some way to ensuring that arguments against global warming got some airing … but we can all imagine how it would have turned out. Totally limp wristed arguments, written in a way that makes them sound ridiculous.

    The answer came when I did a University course on Archaeology. Almost the first day, I was told: “Wikipedia is not a reliable source”.

    And … the daftest thing of all … when I actually need information on global warming … just simple facts and figures … nothing controversial … I never find them in Wikipedia. The articles are atrociously badly written — they are so politically motivated, that they have ignored the very simple things people need to have to make the articles worth reading. THEY ARE USELESS GARBAGE – I always end up going somewhere else.

    And, perhaps the most ironic thing of all … is that if they had allowed sceptics to contribute to the articles instead of keeping us out … far more people would read them.

    WE WERE DOING THEM A FAVOUR BY EDITING … BECAUSE ALL WE WERE DOING BY OUR HUGE EFFORT, WAS FORCING THEM TO TAKE AWAY THE MOST BLATANTLY RIDICULOUS NONSENSE AND MAKE THEIR LIES LOOK LESS LIKE PROPOGANDA.

  67. Peter Pearson says: “I love Wikipedia, and hope it can last a long time before it succumbs completely.”

    The advantage Wikipedia had was that it had no history of being wrong – and a lot of people believed the propoganda that “consensus” could work.

    The disadvantage it has is that it keeps all its history and as opinion changes on a host of subjects, it will become more and more patently obvious to everyone that Wikipedia was not only wrong on most issues but it was wilfully wrong.

    Unlike WIkipedia where “no one is to blame” as it falls flat, a traditional encyclopaedia has a reputation to sustain. So traditional encyclopaedias can’t afford to be wrong. So instead of saying: “the gospel one and only truth (as dictated by the majority of editors) is …”. They say: “author 1 says a1, author 2 says a2, .author 3 ….”. In other words, on a controversial developing subject they use a blunderbuss approach to try to ensure they don’t back the looser … they give a nod to everyone.

    As academic fashionable “truth” is constantly changing, it is only a matter of time before the reality of Wikipedia censorship becomes obvious: that the dominant “consensus” view just repressed what with more evidence later became the new consensus “truth”.

  68. This is from the Church of Global Warming, and may amuse some people:

    http://www.ecowho.com/foia.php?file=0880476729.txt&search=dear+eleven

    “From: Tom Wigley
    To: ???@staff.tpe.wau.nl, ???@gateway.wmo.ch, Klaus Hasselmann , Jill Jaeger , ???@iss.nl, ???@enviro.uct.ac.za, ???@ucl.ac.uk, ???@pik-potsdam.de, ???@geog.ucl.ac.uk, ???@ivm.vu.nlam.de
    Subject: Re: ATTENTION. Invitation to influence Kyoto.
    Date: Tue, 25 Nov 1997 11:52:09 -0700 (MST)

    “…It is not IPCC’s role to make “convincing cases”
    for any particular policy option; nor does it. However, most IPCC readers
    would draw the conclusion that the balance of economic evidence favors the
    emissions trajectories given in the WRE paper. This is contrary to your
    statement.

    This is a complex issue, and your misrepresentation of it does you a
    dis-service. To someone like me, who knows the science, it is
    apparent that you are presenting a personal view, not an informed,
    balanced scientific assessment. What is unfortunate is that this will not
    be apparent to the vast majority of scientists you have contacted. In
    issues like this, scientists have an added responsibility to keep their
    personal views separate from the science, and to make it clear to others
    when they diverge from the objectivity they (hopefully) adhere to in their
    scientific research. I think you have failed to do this.

    Your approach of trying to gain scientific credibility for your personal
    views by asking people to endorse your letter is reprehensible. No
    scientist who wishes to maintain respect in the community should ever
    endorse any statement unless they have examined the issue fully
    themselves. You are asking people to prostitute themselves by doing just
    this! I fear that some will endorse your letter, in the mistaken belief
    that you are making a balanced and knowledgeable assessment of the science
    — when, in fact, you are presenting a flawed view that neither accords
    with IPCC nor with the bulk of the scientific and economic literature on
    the subject…

    “…You appear to be
    putting too much weight on the highly uncertain impacts side of the
    equation. Worse than this, you have not even explained what the issues
    are. In my judgment, you are behaving in an irresponsible way that does
    you little credit. Furthermore, you have compounded your sin by actually
    putting a lie into the mouths of innocents (“after carefully examining the
    question of timing of emissions reductions, we find the arguments against
    postponement to be more compelling”). People who endorse your letter will
    NOT have “carefully examined” the issue.

    When scientists color the science with their own PERSONAL views or make
    categorical statements without presenting the evidence for such
    statements, they have a clear responsibility to state that that is what
    they are doing. You have failed to do so. Indeed, what you are doing is,
    in my view, a form of dishonesty more subtle but no less egregious than
    the statements made by the greenhouse skeptics, Michaels, Singer et al. I
    find this extremely disturbing.

    Tom Wigley”

    What was this all about?
    An email asking for an endorsement from the UEA about AGW.
    The body of the email contained this passage:

    “…Rather than delay, we strongly urge governments in Europe and other
    > industrialized countries to agree to control greenhouse emissions as part
    > of a Kyoto agreement. Some controls can be achieved by reducing fossil fuel
    > use at little or no net cost through accelerated improvements in the
    > efficiency of energy systems, the faster introduction of renewable energy
    > sources, and the reduction of subsidies for fossil fuel use. Moreover,
    > reducing the use of fossil fuels will also reduce local and regional air
    > pollution, and their related impacts on human health and ecosystems.
    >
    > We believe that the European Union (EU) proposal is consistent with long
    > term climate protection. This proposal would reduce key greenhouse gas
    > emissions by 15% from industrialized countries (so-called Annex I
    > countries) by the year 2010 (relative to year 1990). Although stronger
    > emission reductions will be needed in the future, we see the EU, or
    > similar, goal as a positive first step “to prevent dangerous anthropogenic
    > interference with the climate system” and to lessen risks to society and
    > nature. Such substantive action is needed now.
    >
    > *Third Conference of the Parties to the Framework Convention on Climate
    > Change, Kyoto, Japan, December, 1997.
    >
    > Signed:
    >
    > Jan Goudriaan Hartmut Grassl Klaus Hasselmann
    > Jill Jäger Hans Opschoor Tim O’Riordan
    > Martin Parry David Pearce Hans-Joachim Schellnhuber
    > Wolfgang Seiler Pier Vellinga
    > ________________________________________
    >
    >
    > ************************************************************************
    > ** This message originated from the
    > ** Climatic Research Unit, University of East Anglia, Norwich, UK.
    > ** It was sent out by
    > ** Mike Hulme and Tim Mitchell on behalf of the 11 key signatories.
    > ** If you object to being on this email address list,
    > ** please accept our apologies and inform us;
    > ** we will then remove your address from the list.”

  69. “Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again”

    Connolley fiddles while Wikipedia burns.

  70. Wikipedia moved the Ferrigno glacier from 82 West to 160 East because it’s got a rift valley under it. The Ferrigno glacier flows into Eltanin Bay – which Wikipedia has left in the West.

  71. Scottish Sceptic:

    And Connolley? When bankers manipulated the interest rate, it was a criminal offence. If you intentionally falsify the rate of global warming and lie about the evidence causing massive public loss … I’ve no doubt it is a serious criminal offence and he deserves to spend several years in jail.

    At the risk of sounding too much like a cliche geek, there is a Star Trek: The Next Generation episode where they encounter a powerful alien who, in a fit of anger, had eliminated an entire race. After finally confessing his crime, Captain Picard is forced to walk away, telling him something like, “We have no laws for this kind of offense, and obviously no way to enforce them anyway”.

    This is the kind of situation we find ourselves in. We have all witnessed some obscene lying and data manipulation, that has ended up costing the world REAL dollars and REAL productivity, and caused REAL reductions in our standard of living and outlook for the future. Other than lying under oath when addressing congress or that sort of thing, which is difficult enough to prove anyway, what have any of these people done that could land them in court, or jail? And at the moment we couldn’t undo this damage for a long time, even if the highest officials had the will. There will always be a hardcore group that believe in cAGW, no matter what, and the majority of media is committed to pushing the narrative, along with a distressingly large percentage of educators. Too much of our entire civilization has changed to bow to the gods of “sustainability” and other mythical farces to simply stop tomorrow.

    Connolley and others are, to me, the things I point to when I explain the concept of a gatekeeper. They control the message, even when they most likely are aware that the message is a load of crap. This hasn’t worked so well since exactly 80 years ago yesterday, at a time and place that mentioning will invoke Godwin’s Law. But at least Goebbels had total control of the media in Germany… this current crop have managed it even in the face of easily available and clearly visible contrary proof!

  72. richardscourtney says:
    January 30, 2013 at 3:54 pm
    Jon Sanders:
    George Orwell in his book 1984 imagined a leftist state powerful enough to edit history.
    No, he wrote about a rightist state in ’1984′.

    Is that why you could get 7 years in prison for having a typewritten copy of “1984” in the USSR?

    When Orwell wrote “1984”, he was not a “leftist socialist” already. He was a man deeply disillusioned in human nature, and he wrote about any state, right wrong or left wrong.

  73. The commenter Poptech sources a Conservapedia reference on the antics of Connolley.

    http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

    The article seems to be a very good summery of the antics of our Mr Connolley and highly believable. However, when you look at the home page and go onto some other subjects, under the article on the age of the earth, Conservapedia conservatively suggests that 6000-10000 years is the most likely age.

    “The Age of the Earth has been a matter of interest to humans for millennia. The subject is still debated today, particularly between young-Earth scientists, who believe that the Earth is only approximately 6,000-10,000 years old, and most scientific organisations who believe that Earth is approximately 4.54 billion years.[1][1] The scientific evidence points to a young age of the earth and the universe, and the biblical creation organization Creation Ministries International published an article entitled 101 evidences for a young age of the earth and the universe, which further argues for the young age of the Earth.”

    Does WUWT really wish to be identified with such a source. I think I would believe Wikipedia’s and Connolley’s distortions on climate science before I would use Conservapedia as a reference source.

  74. I have never personally met William M Connolley in a private face to face situation.

    His blog persona approximates the persona of RC denizens enough to make me wonder about cloning.

    However, a personal face to face mutual assessment between people is necessary for me to really understand another human entity’s full situation / position. So I would find it valuable to have a opportunity to talk with William M Connolley. It would help me understand his human condition.

    John

  75. TomRude says:
    January 30, 2013 at 2:32 pm
    Let’s not forget that the main donors of Wikipedia include the same US billionaires who have been funding the green disruption in Canada…
    =========
    Tides Canada is the screen behind which they hide.

  76. A lot of good points are being made about Wikipedia’s editor problems, pretty much everyone at Wikipedia recognizes the problem and has for years, even from his twisted point of view William Connelley is acting to control [as opposed to working out a solution for] the problem. We do not yet have a solution to the problem, or the will to carry it out, but working out a solution [and I emphasize “working out”] is of singular importance to humanity as a whole. I will reiterate my warning:

    All human knowledge WILL eventually be aggregated into a single digital database, who do you want to hold the keys? Who do you want to be the gatekeepers?? YOU or Google??? – or the UN, the federal government, the Chinese, or .

    The wiki in general and Wikipedia in particular represents an entirely new category of human interaction: the global, open-source, massively collaborative project. How Wikipedia – meaning us – solves this problem is of enormous importance in human evolution. The wiki is how humanity will do things in the future, if it is to be a future not completely dominated by evil bureaucratic entities over which you and I have effectively zero control.

    The wiki offers hope to our global problems because it is essentially an INDIVIDUAL effort, A LOT of individuals doing their own thing and learning to cooperate with each other to produce a work that they would never be able to accomplish singly. To the degree that we have problems with herd mentality, and ‘consensus’ enforcement & etc. is exactly the degree to which the Wiki is failing. Consensus, a reasonable, reasoned consensus has something to do with it, but is not ‘it'; ‘it’ has a lot to do with a lot of people learning to act with self-restraint, cooperate with each other, and how to deal with uncertainty and personal bias ‘reasonably’. This has never happened before on a global scale, it will not be easy, it involves A LOT of people getting over their own personal ‘whatever’.

    The current edifice of Wikipedia may fail to “work out” its problems, in which case it should be replaced – by one that works. Google is probably capable of doing the work, the UN probably not, maybe the Chinese, but would you really want any of those people holding the keys to the sum of human knowledge? Really?? This IS going to happen, in our lifetimes, probably much sooner than anyone realizes – or wants. The solutions to the problem are for each one of us to find, it’s an individual problem, and ultimately the solutions are individual ones.

    Time to get to work, this is actually important.

    W^3

  77. Alexander Feht says:
    January 31, 2013 at 5:42 am
    When Orwell wrote “1984″, he was not a “leftist socialist” already. He was a man deeply disillusioned in human nature, and he wrote about any state, right wrong or left wrong.
    =========
    Agreed. Folks make a mistake in assuming leftist or rightist politics are the problem. George Washington recognized the problem and wrote about it. It is like the old joke, “I’d never want to be a member of a club that would have someone like me as a member”. Anyone that wants to be a politician should not be allowed to be in politics.

    In court, would you trust a jury of people that ran an election to get on the jury? No, because you would suspect the people had an ulterior motive. So, instead we select people at random. So why would you trust politicians that run elections to get into government?

    If we really want to have fair and unbiased politics, we would select politicians at random similar to the way we select juries. In this fashion we would actually have a representative government.

  78. I would strongly advise anyone considering contributing to Wikipedia, not to do so. It has been thoroughly corrupted and you’d be lending your name and integrity to it. There are just too many Connolleys and his stoogies and sockpuppets all over the thing.

    Pointman

  79. It’s ironic but it was Connelly who first got me really interested in climate change. I read his rantings and distortions as an Wikipedia editor and I thought for any guy to be so abusive on science based matters must be on thin ice. Proved to be right. Thanks Connelly.

  80. richardscourtney says:
    January 31, 2013 at 1:23 am

    “I suggest you take your meds.”

    You my friend have taken more then enough for both of us.

  81. Alexander Feht:

    It never fails to surprise me how upset right wing Americans get when confronted with the views of pure socialists such as George Orwell or myself. It really hurts American rightists to recognise how we see the dangers provided by totalitarians of any colour.

    At January 31, 2013 at 5:42 am you quote this part of what I wrote about one of Orwell’s books

    he wrote about a rightist state in ’1984′.

    and you ask
    Is that why you could get 7 years in prison for having a typewritten copy of “1984″ in the USSR?
    I answer: No. All his books were banned in the USSR because he wrote ‘Animal Farm’ as an allegory of the USSR and exposed how the revolution had been usurped by communist totalitarians. Also, ‘1984’ described the horrors of totalitarianism and the USSR was totalitarian.

    You wrongly assert

    When Orwell wrote “1984″, he was not a “leftist socialist” already. He was a man deeply disillusioned in human nature, and he wrote about any state, right wrong or left wrong.

    He was a “leftist socialist” throughout his entire adult life until he died. Long before he wrote ‘1984’ about a rightist state (and ‘Animal Farm’ about a leftist state; i.e. the Soviet Union) he went to Spain to fight against the right in the Spanish Civil War.

    He was never “deeply disillusioned in human nature”: on the contrary, he was a socialist and, therefore, had a profound belief in the ability of every human being to achieve greatness if not oppressed. His writings proclaim the possibilities of the human spirit and how that spirit is crushed by oppression.

    The AGW-scare is providing an excuse for the evil of totalitarianism.

    If he were now alive Eric Arthur Blair (aka George Orwell) would be writing to expose the horrific future which promoters of the AGW-scare threaten to create.

    Richard

  82. ferd berple says:
    January 31, 2013 at 8:04 am
    “If we really want to have fair and unbiased politics, we would select politicians at random similar to the way we select juries. In this fashion we would actually have a representative government.”

    Unless the government is insanely restricted you will at some point of people that randomly decided to put everything in ovens or something along that line.No matter how you “elect” the government the more power the government has the more evil it will due with it. Its why through all of history socialists have caused mass genocide, war and other general problems.

  83. richardscourtney says:
    “The AGW-scare is providing an excuse for the evil of totalitarianism.”

    Yes because you as a socialist believe that somehow totalitarianism/authoritarianism can be good.
    Sure its never worked in the past.
    Sure your ideas are exactly the same as the past.
    However your so much smarter then all those people in the past… they all just did it wrong, even though your ideas are exactly the same.

    I would suggest you read this basic prime which talks about your “good” totalitarianism/authoritarianism.

    http://www.savageleft.com/poli/hoc.html

  84. temp:

    re your post at January 31, 2013 at 8:43 am

    You are an egregious internet troll who throws insults from behind the cowardly shield of anonymity so I fail to understand why you claim I am your friend.

    Richard

  85. temp:

    The proof of my point in my post at January 31, 2013 at 9:01 am is provided by your sickening post at January 31, 2013 at 8:58 am.

    I oppose totalitarianism in all its forms: all socialists do. That is why the right-wing government in Germany in the 1930s rounded us up and put us in the gas chambers to which you refer.

    I will not answer any more of your tripe until you apologise.

    You and Connolley are of a type: you distort the truth to promote your agenda.

    Richard

  86. Thomas says:
    January 30, 2013 at 1:44 pm

    There is a list in Wikipedia on which editors have been most active….
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    The other option is someone who is retired and edits WIKI for fun. My husband, a retired technical writer does this.

  87. Unsubstantiated allegations (“makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task”) do not represent WUWT at its finest.

    The linked article is disappointing in many ways. The article implies he edited as a “climate expert”. That term has no meaning in Wikipedia, which, for better or worse, offers no special deference to experts in fields. It refers to him as a “Wikipedia umpire” another term with no formal meaning in Wikipedia. Perhaps they meant the term in the generic sense, but there literally are no such things as umpires when it comes to content. Connolley was an administrator at one time, but that position gives on some tools to deal with editor conduct not article content. The article claims he has edited 5438 articles, a remarkably precise number in view of the fact that it is 7411, as of today (http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=William+M.+Connolley&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia)

    His edit in climate areas are controversial, and have been discussed many times. But the characterization of him as “The Wikipedia umpire on Climate Change” is way off the mark.

  88. richardscourtney says:
    January 31, 2013 at 9:01 am

    “You are an egregious internet troll who throws insults from behind the cowardly shield of anonymity so I fail to understand why you claim I am your friend.”

    Projectionism is fun isn’t it. I have repeatedly debunked your mindless propaganda claims and you have repeatedly refuse to even have an attempt at a rational conversation.

    “I oppose totalitarianism in all its forms: all socialists do.”

    Scientifically impossible. In order to be a socialist you must be either a totalitarian or authoritarian.

    ” That is why the right-wing government in Germany in the 1930s rounded us up and put us in the gas chambers to which you refer.”

    Lol yeah the “rightwing hitler next to the moderate stalinist government” sure did do some rounding up to bring about socialism.

    Those of us with a basic science background know that hitler was not an anarchist. He was a socialist with a massive government. Which of course is what he used to round up people and to control pretty much everything.

    When the government owns and controls the means of production that called socialism… and there can be no historic doubt that hitler owned and controlled the means of production.

  89. “With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.”

    I suspect some connection to the U.S. Democratic Party.

    A comment was posted to a local newspaper forum that included data from the Western Regional Climate Center. The comment was in response to a reader complaining about how hot the weather had become. The data showed that high temperatures had been declining since 2001, and that the hottest temps on record occurred back the the 1920s. A local Democratic Party hack piped up with the ‘denier’ ad hominem and suggested that anyone who wanted the truth about climate change should google “climate change science.” When you do that, the top three results are the EPA, the Connolly-monitored Wikipedia page, and SkepticalScience.com.

    Perhaps “Climate Change Science” should appear somewhere on WUWT’s main page.

  90. Colin Porter says:
    January 31, 2013 at 6:36 am

    “Does WUWT really wish to be identified with such a source. I think I would believe Wikipedia’s and Connolley’s distortions on climate science before I would use Conservapedia as a reference source.”

    So what are you sayin?

    -That if someone here claims that Elvis lives, then WUWT is identified with this claim? And that it therefore should be censored?

    If so,
    Don’t you realize that this is what is ruling on RealClimate and Huffington Post?

    It is exactly such an opinion that any “Statist” would like.

    A “Statist” is someone who wants a Strong Big State, which again requires concensus policies.

    Example of “Statist”‘s ; National Socialists ( or Nazis ), Mao’s socialist, Albanian socialists, Lenin and Stalins socialism, today’s green movement and so on. Heck, Norwegian social democracy wants it too.

    The far right in the U.S would not fall within the definition of a “Statist”; They want a small effective State with a limited scope of responsibility, with lots of individual freedom. The opposite, in other words.

  91. Friends:

    It has become fashionable to misrepresent reality in attempt to ensure that falsehoods are seen as being ‘accepted reality’. Connolley does it on wicki, but it is a common practice of all extremists.

    The misrepresentation consists of using a false claim of justification from “science” to rewrite facts and history. It is a despicable practice. We need to defend against all who do it.

    Some may doubt this despicable practice is common behaviour of extremists. But the troll posting as ‘temp’ is providing us with an example of the problem in real time in this thread.

    As example, consider this example from the troll’s post at January 31, 2013 at 10:31 am

    Those of us with a basic science background know that h1tler was not an anarchist. He was a socialist with a massive government. Which of course is what he used to round up people and to control pretty much everything.

    How does “a basic science background” teach anything about H1tler?
    What has “anarchy” to do with H1tler’s fascism?
    It is a lie to claim that H1tler was a socialist when he was a fascist who attempted genocide of socialists.
    H1tler used ‘small’ (n.b. not “massive”) government which operated by fear so had total control.
    His secret police (Gestapo) and personal bodyguard (SS) did the “rounding up” on the instruction of his government.

    Simply, the quote rewrites reality and falsely claims “science” as justification for doing it. Indeed, perusal of the troll’s posts shows the quotation is typical of the troll’s behaviour. But, fortunately, the troll has no possibility of altering the posts of others.

    But Connolley was given free-rein to alter the posts of others on Wicki so all posts concerning climate concur with his views. He has trashed Wiki. The severity of the damage done by Connolley is clear from considering the damage that would result if temp were given free-rein to change posts to WUWT so they only agreed with his views.

    Richard

  92. Niff says:
    “One would have thought that an “editor” deleting 500 articles and banning 2000 contributors would raise some attention as to their bona fides”

    Those numbers might sound high but they are not.

    2000 blocks seems like a lot, but it isn’t. There are 25 administrators with over 9000 blocks each.

    500 deletions is tiny. I’ve deleted 20,000. 25 admins have over 50,000 each.

    (As a technical point, he didn’t ban anyone. Bans are imposed by community consensus, although blocks can be issued by administrators.)

  93. Connolley AKA Stoat, is another indispensable advertisement for the ethical problem of Team Global Warming.
    Like the mann, could any sane person invent this guy?
    A zealot of the weasels calibre has to be seen, description is inadequate.
    Every person who is making honest inquires, for their own education, that runs into Real Climate, ranting by the mann or the truthyness of the weasel, is appalled and looks to saner sites for information.
    Wikipedia is dead, because the stoat types were left free to destroy it.
    So Connolley should be encouraged, as I doubt he will ever get his feet untangled from his back molars.
    All hail Al Gore, who’s hypocrisy can not be disguised.

  94. It’s not just Climate Science, folks. On one occasion I cited Jevons and Jevons Paradox. Linked to a rather good wiki article on it. Jevons was an early economist AND a person who invented an early form of computer (“logic piano”). He is one of the “Founding Lights” of economics.

    So Jevons Paradox recognized an interesting aspect of human nature and economics. More efficiency of fuel use does NOT lead to less fuel use, it leads to more. Why? Because as each use becomes cheaper (due to being more efficient) folks naturally find more uses. Total consumption goes up, not down. This is well established. (Take the CFL Bulb, for example. Cost to run it is so low it isn’t worth turning them off. Since you only get about 10,000 on/off cycles, it is more economical to turn it on and leave it on all day than to cycle each time you enter a room.)

    So that was what the page said. History also showed the same thing. Jevons was writing about Coal. The new steam engine was much more efficient and being touted as saving coal reserves. The reality was a massive increase in uses of the new engine and more coal demand.

    Sometime after I referenced it, the page was vandalized and turned into an exposition of why Jovons Paradox was not correct (history be damned…)

    Now, IF I find something useful on a wiki page, I just copy it wholesale and archive it. Sometimes I’ll still link to the original (hey, might as well keep them busy ;-) but always remember that it’s “All Propaganda All The Time” once you show something is in existence, it will be attacked.

    http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2009/05/12/jevons-paradox-coal-oil-conservation/

  95. @temp 10:31 am and there can be no historic doubt that hitler owned and controlled the means of production.

    Ludwid von Mises disagrees:

    “The German and the Russian systems of socialism have in com­mon the fact that the government has full control of the means of production. It decides what shall be produced and how. It allots to each individual a share of consumer’s goods for his consumption. These systems would not have to be called socialist if it were other­wise.
    ….
    The German pattern differs from the Russian one in that it (seemingly and nominally) maintains private ownership of the means of production and keeps the appearance of ordinary prices, wages, and markets. There are, however, no longer entrepreneurs but only shop managers (Betriebsführer). – An excerpt from http://dictators.blogspot.com/2004/07/nazi-germany-and-socialism.html

    Temp, I don’t quibble with your practical point that ownership of assets without control means you don’t really own the asset. However, your view erases the mean distinctions between fascism / Nazism and state oriented communism. The actual legal ownership of the means of production is the main concept that distinguishes these two totalitarian systems from each other.

  96. richardscourtney says:
    January 31, 2013 at 11:21 am

    “Some may doubt this despicable practice is common behaviour of extremists. But the troll posting as ‘temp’ is providing us with an example of the problem in real time in this thread.”

    No i’m trying to correct your propaganda of which you have refused to debate me many times… as is classic of propaganda spreaders.

    “How does “a basic science background” teach anything about H1tler?”

    Basic science background is someone grounded in the scientific method. Also someone that understand basic logic.

    “What has “anarchy” to do with H1tler’s fascism?” Nothing which is the point. Hitler was a socialist not an anarchist… which is the point. You claim that hitler was a rightwing anarchist is completely and utterly false.

    “It is a lie to claim that H1tler was a socialist when he was a fascist who attempted genocide of socialists.”

    Fascism is a form of socialism… thats like claiming that communism is not a form of socialism.

    “H1tler used ‘small’ (n.b. not “massive”) government which operated by fear so had total control.”

    Small? Your idea of small… is very “stalin is a moderate”. Hitler took over companies at a whim, ordered people jailed, etc at his simple order. You can argue that he may have been more efficient then say stalin or mao in his socialist actions…however to argue his government small… pfft.

    “Simply, the quote rewrites reality and falsely claims “science” as justification for doing it.”

    Science is very clear on the issue. Two ideologies in life. Collectivism on the far left and Individualism on the far right.

    Individualists believe in anarchy as a government type and free market capitalism/capitalism as an economic type. A pure individuals believes only in the single person. They have no concept of the “group”. To say they have no understanding of the concept of race or other group concepts. This of course means that a pure individualists CAN NOT be racist or any other type of group concept.

    Collectivists believe total government be it totalitarianism/authoritarianism and an economic type of socialism. Pure collectivists think only of the group. They don’t believe in the concept of the individual. They are racist, bigoted, etc. They seek control and must destroy any completing collective.

    Great examples of collectivists running wild are Hitler, Stalin, Plato. Hitler and stalins joining forces and then when one collectivists seeing the chance tp purge itself of a competing collective they do… which is why hitler attacked stalin and with the famous saying roughly translated to “We will bring them true socialism”.

    Collectivists will work with other collectives to reach the goals they have in common. Once they do they will begin to purge out each group until only the purest remains. That is why when you look at collectivist groups like say the KKK and the black panthers… they both want the same exact things almost too the letter. Expect they only want those things for the “approved” collective as they view it.

    Common confusion when seeing collectivists vs collectivists and them being called anarchists.

    Collectivists support government. They want government to exist and control things normally massively.

    Anarchists do not want government to exist at all. They do not want anything from the government.

    Too often we see violent collectivists/socialists called anarchists. They are not anarchists since they want the government to exist they just want to be in charge of the government. No anarchist would ever want things like government healthcare, government loans, government anything. Anarchist oppose the government, any government existing.

    Socialists oppose the current government existing because as collectivists they believe “they’re” collective is superior.

    This is the exact ideology that richardscourtney believes in. He believes his collectivist ideas are more “pure” and better then the other collectives even though in reality they are exactly the same. The only difference between a socialist and a genocidal mad man is that a socialist doesn’t have the power to bring about his “pure”, “better” collective. While a genocidal mad man is in the process or finished the process of bring about “perfect” socialism.

    This is science and history 101. Based in the scientific method of empirical and observational data. For thousands of years we have seen it again and again.

    This link has just some minor data on that history… which we are doomed to repeat again and again.

    http://www.savageleft.com/poli/hoc.html

  97. temp

    Alexander Feht

    richardscourtney

    – – – – – – –

    I am enjoying your discussion about totalitarianism. A comprehensive resource on it is the book ‘ The Origins of Totalitarianism’ by Hannah Arendt first published in 1951. It is still in print, I saw just yesterday a copy if it for sale at a Barnes and Noble Bookstore in San Jose CA.

    As to meaning of totalitarianism => all aspects of the human condition, both real and imagined, are at the sole pleasure of the state.

    As to meaning of authoritarianism => it is the overall preference for the use of a state’s authority for decisions instead of the alternative to let people make their own individual free voluntary choices.

    As to the meaning of collectivism => it is property ownership by the state. Obviously it is conducive to both totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

    Altruism => it can be a systemic moral system of self-sacrifice to the state’s goals which is conducive to totalitarianism, authoritarianism and collectivism. Altruism on a personal scale can be looked at as being non-social.

    John

  98. Wikipedia asks for donations. There is a page with an email address: problemsdonating (at) wikimedia.org. I decided to explain my problem. Exerpt below:

    People such as this are rewriting history and polluting a community treasure. It is a Tragedy of an Electronic Commons that left unchecked will render Wikipedia an informational slum.

    <b?Why should I donate to a project that turns a blind eye to desecration of history, knowledge and areas of research? …

    I freely make the assumption that Wikipedia does NOT see itself as the Ministry of Truth:

    Winston Smith works as a clerk in the Records Department of the Ministry of Truth , where his job is to rewrite historical documents so they match the constantly changing current party line. This involves revising newspaper articles and doctoring photographs—mostly to remove “unpersons”, people who have fallen foul of the party. (Wikipedia page on “Winston Smith”)

    Assuming that you really believe in an unbiased point of view, it is time for Wikipedia top management to adopt your own, “Clean Air Act”. Put an end to intellectual pollution of out of control, biased and malicious editors and revisers. Make an example of these polluters destroying the value of the Commons.

    I then provided links and excerpts to:
    Dillingpole: 12/22/2009: <a href=>Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia
    P.Solar 1/30 2:34 pm, Dodgy Geezer 1/30 3:06 pm, and Lew Skannen 1/30 2:49 pm above.
    And the latest 50 edits Connolley made in the past 8 days.

    I have no illusion that my letter will have an impact. However, if there were no rain drops, there could be no floods.

    It will be interesting to see if the page on Winston Smith gets edit activity. (5 edits since Dec. 4, 2012. Last Jan. 18.)

  99. @temp 12:26 pm
    Individualists believe in anarchy as a government type and free market capitalism/capitalism as an economic type.

    I think this is a confused view. Pure Capitalists and Pure Anarchists both want minimal government. But Capitalists require property rights while Anarchists believe in no rights or laws of any kind.

    Revolutionary Anarchists who fight for new socialist governments are, as you say, people with a totalitarian bent who hope to be running the next show. They believe in lots of laws…. they just don’t believe in any of the existing laws.

  100. Stephen Rasey says:
    January 31, 2013 at 12:21 pm

    Your quote does not really support your argument. The important part is this “(seemingly and nominally) maintains private ownership”. This is saying the same thing I say. The government pretends that it doesn’t “own” the “means of production”/private property… but in fact it does.

    Lets assume for the moment that the government can have total control of the means of production but not “own” them.

    Then let us assume that is indeed the definition of fascism.

    By that definition of fascism neither hitler or mussolini would be considered fascists. Hitler nationalized huge sections of the economy… most known is of course the state take over and running and producing the the car “the beetle”.

    If fascism is where all property is privately owned… then clearly by hitler owning BMW this means he is not a fascist.

    As to mussolini I do know he nationalized private property I just do not have one i know off the top of my head.

    Another problem with the whole own vs control. If you own something and someone else controls it… and they choose to use that control to destroy that object… they also choose not to replace or compensate the owner for said destruction… does the “owner” really own it?

    One could argue that if the controller is forced to replace/compensate the owner that it maybe legitimate… however if they do not… then I can’t see any rational or scientific way that one could argue that the “owner” owns it.

    Hitler did in fact do such a thing… a lot. So have many other so called “fascists” so once again by that definition… hitler nor any current “fascist” in history would be a fascist.

    This goes back to the classic collectivist propaganda argument made by every socialist nut. “My collective is so much better, righter, blah blah blaher different then those other collectives.”

    And

    “Well that wasn’t “real” communism(insert whatever form of socialism/collectivism). “Real blah blah blah is this.”

    These arguments are of course the exact arguments that richardscourtney is using.

    ” John Whitman says:
    January 31, 2013 at 12:33 pm ”

    “As to the meaning of collectivism => it is property ownership by the state. Obviously it is conducive to both totalitarianism and authoritarianism.”

    While I don’t dispute this definition per say I believe it falls on a different scale vs the definition through sociology that I use.

    IE. Economics can have a scale of “controlled capitalism” vs “free market capitalism”. In sociology they have the same scale but they call it socialism vs capitalism.

    Even though the scales are exactly the same, mean the exact same thing. They use slightly different verbiage due to how they are viewed.

    In economics “capital” is basically anything ie tools, labor, etc. Capitalism is simply the “actions” of capital ie movement, work, etc. So state controlled capitalism the state controls the tools, etc. In free market capitalism the state has no control over tools, etc.

    In sociology they use the term “means of production” for things like tools, etc. On that scale socialism where the government owns and controls the means of production is equal to state controlled capitalism. Where capitalism means free market capitalism.

    A common mistake is that people often confuse these two scale. A classic of this is the term used “crony capitalism”. Crony capitalism comes from the economics scale… and it is on the left/state controlled side… IE crony capitalism form of socialism from an economics perspective.

    The problem is people see “capitalism” and they assume it means the sociology definition of capitalism.
    For reference crony capitalism is basically similar to fascism in where the government chooses winners and losers in the market place but pretends that the market is free, that theirs private ownership.

  101. John Whitman on January 31, 2013 at 12:33 pm

    temp

    Alexander Feht

    richardscourtney

    – – – – – – –

    I am enjoying your discussion about totalitarianism. A comprehensive resource on it is the book ‘ The Origins of Totalitarianism’ by Hannah Arendt first published in 1951. It is still in print, I saw just yesterday a copy if it for sale at a Barnes and Noble Bookstore in San Jose CA.

    As to meaning of totalitarianism => all aspects of the human condition, both real and imagined, are at the sole pleasure of the state.

    As to meaning of authoritarianism => it is the overall preference for the use of a state’s authority for decisions instead of the alternative to let people make their own individual free voluntary choices.

    As to the meaning of collectivism => it is property ownership by the state. Obviously it is conducive to both totalitarianism and authoritarianism.

    Altruism => it can be a systemic moral system of self-sacrifice to the state’s goals which is conducive to totalitarianism, authoritarianism and collectivism. Altruism on a personal scale can be looked at as being non-social.

    John

    – – – – – – –

    With the above meanings we can expand.

    The meaning of socialism => it is the use of authoritarianism on any and all scales. It can accumulate to totalitarianism, and most classic economists say it has an inherent tendency toward total economic control by the state; to totalitarianism.

    Of essence in totalitarianism, authoritarianism, collectivism and socialism is why want them? I think they are wanted by people who think it is rational and moral to initiate force against an individual for any reason. I think no reason justifies that initiation of force against any individuals.

    John

  102. ” Stephen Rasey says:”
    I think this is a confused view. Pure Capitalists and Pure Anarchists both want minimal government. But Capitalists require property rights while Anarchists believe in no rights or laws of any kind.

    Few things here. Pure capitalists want no government. A government that can not get money/wealth/goods/anything can not exist. In pure capitalism the government may do nothing to the economy which means no taxes, fees, owning of business, issuing property rights, anything… because by definition that would me the government is in the economy.

    Anarchists don’t want government at all. Or you could say the they want a government of “one”.

    While your correct in saying that capitalists want property rights… those are not pure capitalists. The difference is in how you choose to define “property rights”.

    Are property rights something only the government can give? Or are they natural rights?

    If you believe only the government can give/take then you believe only the government can give property rights. However if you believe in natural rights the government has no right to your land in the first place… they neither own or control your land because its yours. This means that you still have property rights… for as long as you have control of your land…

    In simple terms if you buy land from the government you own and control it in the same way you buy land from someone else.

    However if you believe only the government can give/take land then by defacto you are saying the land all is owned by the government to start with… and you and who ever you sell or buy from is merely trading “control” of said land.

  103. richardscourtney said “ It is a lie to claim that Hitler was a socialist when he was a fascist who attempted genocide of socialist…“.

    Stephen Rasey is correct, Facism is a close cousin to communism and national socialism. The primary difference being in the ownership of the means of production.

    One of the interesting things to me is Connolley’s connection with Real Climate, Jim Hansen, the Hockey Team, and Fenton Communications. Fenton Communications, a far-left oriented communications firm, sponsored the creation of the Real Climate web site, and in spite of statements to the contrary, I believe that Fenton mapped out their short and long term communications plans to keep the Hockey Stick and AGW meme alive. It has probably been updated yearly since. Plus, there are reports that Dr Hansen travels with a Fenton Communications representative to make sure he sticks ti the same story.

    Fenton was listed as the owner of the realclimate.com domain name for years. It is only reasonable that not only did Fenton (and subsequent orgainzations) pay for hosting for Real Climate, but I would be surprised if Jim Hansen did NOT have comprehensive communications plan locked up somewhere. The results are to be commended.

    1) The Team has been able to control the publication of papers of skeptics by skeptics.
    2) Team members control the content and conclusion of the much flawed IPCC process.
    3) Members of the original cabal have been able to get editors fired for publishing competing science.
    4) The Team has managed to keep the biggest scientific fraud since Piltdown man alive.
    5) At least one of the members of the cabal was able to secret himself into the inner-workings of Wikipedia, which is many times the first sources listed in Google searches.

    The Team is controlling the narrative with misinformation and strong-arming their way through live, but not with legitimate science. That is how a good plan can help your cause.

    Of course, this is speculation on my part, except for Connolley and Fenton Communications sponsoring Real Climate.

  104. John Whitman:

    Thankyou for your factual post at January 31, 2013 at 12:33 pm. Sadly, as is already demonstrated in this thread, it will be ignored by bigots eager to promote their totalitarian objectives by any means possible.

    Richard

  105. richardscourtney says:
    January 31, 2013 at 2:29 pm
    ” it will be ignored by bigots eager to promote their totalitarian objectives by any means possible.”

    Yes you are completely ignoring it since is debunks all your arguments.

  106. John Whitman:

    re your post at January 31, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    No! You cannot reasonably “expand” the meaning of socialism to distort it into the opposite of what it is. Your distortion is so malign that I refuse to copy it.

    Frankly, that is as bad as the insane ravings of the troll posting as ‘temp’.

    This thread is proving to be a clear demonstration to onlookers of how zealots will corrupt any statement of truth as a method to promote their objectives.

    You, temp and Connolley are of a kind. And this thread is demonstrating why your behaviour is dangerous to all.

    Richard

  107. Bob:

    You are mistaken. All totalitarianism is evil. But that does not mean that all totalitarian governments share a common philosophy.

    That mistake leads to guarding against one group of totalitarians while allowing others to take power.

    National Socialists tried to exterminate Jews and socialists. An assertion that socialism is akin to National Socialism is as offensive as saying Judaism is akin to National Socialism.

    Richard

  108. temp, you agree that Pure Capitalists require property rights. Do those rights “come from government?” No. But a minimal government of some sort is required to define, preserve, and defend those rights to the satisfaction of society. Without the codification of property rights, there cannot be any practical social agreement as to what the rights are. Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win unless a society (through the form of a limited government) steps in and demarcates the limits of rights.

    As for whether rights come from government or God, they come from neither. There is this excellent monolog which well argues that rights are not natural.

    “The results should have been predictable, since a human being has no natural rights of any nature.

    … Somebody took the bait. “Sir? How about `life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness’?”

    “Ah yes, the unalienable rights. Each year someone quotes that magnificent poetry. Life? What ‘right’ to life has a man who is drowning in the Pacific? The ocean will not hearken to his cries. What ‘right’ to life has a man who must die to save his children? If he chooses to save his own life, does he do so as a matter of ‘right’? If two men are starving and cannibalism is the only alternative to death, which man’s right is ‘unalienable’? And is it ‘right’?

    As to liberty, the heroes who signed the great document pledged themselves to buy liberty with their lives. Liberty is never unalienable; it must be redeemed regularly with the blood of patriots or it always vanishes. Of all the so-called natural human rights that have ever been invented, liberty is least likely to be cheap and is never free of cost.

    The third ‘right’?—the ‘pursuit of happiness’? It is indeed unalienable but it is not a right; it is simply a universal condition which tyrants cannot take away nor patriots restore. Cast me into a dungeon, burn me at the stake, crown me king of kings, I can ‘pursue happiness’ as long as my brain lives—but neither gods nor saints, wise men nor subtle drugs, can ensure that I will catch it.”
    ○ Source: Lt. Col. Jean V. Dubois (Ret.), Page 119, Chap. 8, Starship Troopers, by Robert A. Heinlein, 1959

  109. richardscourtney says:
    January 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    “Frankly, that is as bad as the insane ravings of the troll posting as ‘temp’.”

    Don’t let reality, logic, science, empirical or observational data get in the way of your fantasy version of your perfect world.

    “All totalitarianism is evil”

    I agree which is why socialism is evil…

    “An assertion that socialism is akin to National Socialism”

    Is the truth… funny thing about socialists is every socialist claims they have the one “true” socialism. Though they use the exact same ideas and every past socialist.

    I also note that your not saying anything bad about authoritarians…

    Under pretty much every definition listed so far… hitler would be an authoritarian not a totalitarian… So your cool with hitler right?

    And really whats the difference between a totalitarian committing genocide vs an authoritarian… hmm lets see in a totalitarian government only the government supports the genocide… well thats clearly not hitler. On the other hand an authoritarian government is where the people support the government in its genocide… hmmm yeah sounds a lot more like hitler.

    The simple reality is that you can’t face reality richards courtney. You have let to provide one bit of an argument based in anything other thing whining. This is the problem with socialists… they can never explain socialism.

    Which is of course why only “They” know “true” socialism because no one understands socialism but them.

    This is of course classic marx which said that the scientific method was designed to oppress the “proletarian” and that science was of the “bourgeois”. Only through “marxist” science can “marxism” be properly explained.

    Ludwig von Mises, Socialism: An Economic and Sociological Analysis

    “It is a matter of dispute whether, prior to the middle of the nineteenth 15 century, there existed any clear conception of the socialist idea—by which is understood the socialization of the means of production with its corollary, the centralized control of the whole of production by one social or, more accurately, state organ. The answer depends primarily upon whether we regard the demand for a centralized administration of the means of production throughout the world as an essential feature in a considered socialist plan. The older socialists looked upon the autarky of small territories as ’natural’ and on any exchange of goods beyond their frontiers as at once ’artificial’ and harmful. Only after the English Free-Traders had proved the advantages of an international division of labour, and popularized their views through the Cobden movement, did the socialists begin to expand the ideas of village and district Socialism into a national and, eventually, a world Socialism. Apart from this one point, however, the basic conception of Socialism had been quite clearly worked out in the course of the second quarter of the nineteenth century by those writers designated by Marxism as “Utopian Socialists.” Schemes for a socialist order of society were extensively discussed at that time, but the discussion did not go in their favour. The Utopians had not succeeded in planning social structures that would withstand the criticisms of economists and sociologists. It was easy to pick holes in their schemes; to prove that a society constructed on such principles must lack efficiency and vitality, and that it certainly would not come up to expectations. Thus, about the middle of the nineteenth century, it seemed that the ideal of Socialism had been disposed of. Science had demonstrated its worthlessness by means of strict logic and its supporters were unable to produce a single effective counter-argument.

    It was at this moment that Marx appeared. Adept as he was in Hegelian dialectic—a system easy of abuse by those who seek to dominate thought by arbitrary flights of fancy and metaphysical verbosity—he was not slow in finding a way out of the dilemma in which socialists found themselves. Since Science and Logic had argued against Socialism, it was imperative to devise a system which could be relied on to defend it against such unpalatable criticism. This was the task which Marxism undertook to perform. It had three lines of procedure. First, it denied that Logic is universally valid for all mankind and for all ages. Thought, it stated, was determined by the class of the thinkers; was in fact an “ideological superstructure” of their class interests. The type of reasoning which had refuted the socialist idea was “revealed” as “bourgeois” reasoning, an apology for Capitalism. Secondly, it laid it down that the dialectical development led of necessity to Socialism; that the aim and end of all history was the socialization of the means of production by the expropriation of the expropriators—the negation of negation. Finally, it was ruled that no one should be allowed to put forward, as the Utopians had done, any definite proposals for the construction of the Socialist Promised Land. Since the coming of Socialism was inevitable, Science would best renounce all attempt to determine its nature.

    At no point in history has a doctrine found such immediate and complete acceptance as that contained in these three principles of Marxism. The magnitude and persistence of its success is commonly underestimated. This is due to the habit of applying the term Marxist exclusively to formal members of one or other of the self-styled Marxist parties, who are pledged to uphold word for word the doctrines of Marx and Engels as interpreted by their respective sects and to regard such doctrines as the unshakable foundation and ultimate source of all that is known about Society and as constituting the highest standard in political dealings. But if we include under the term “Marxist” all who have accepted the basic Marxian principles—that class conditions thought, that Socialism is inevitable, and that research into the being and working of the socialist community is unscientific—we shall find very few non-Marxists in Europe east of the Rhine, and even in Western Europe and the United States many more supporters than opponents of Marxism. Professed Christians attack the materialism of Marxists, monarchists their republicanism, nationalists their internationalism; yet they themselves, each in turn, wish to be known as Christian Socialists, State Socialists, National Socialists. They assert that their particular brand of Socialism is the only true one—that which “shall” come, bringing with it happiness and contentment. The Socialism of others, they say, has not the genuine class origin of their own. At the same time they scrupulously respect Marx’s prohibition of any inquiry into the institutions of the socialist economy of the future, and try to interpret the working of the present economic system as a development leading to Socialism in accordance with the inexorable demand of the historical process. Of course, not Marxists alone, but most of those who emphatically declare themselves anti-Marxists, think entirely on Marxist lines and have adopted Marx’s arbitrary, unconfirmed and easily refutable dogmas. If and when they come into power, they govern and work entirely in the socialist spirit.

    The incomparable success of Marxism is due to the prospect it offers of fulfilling those dream-aspirations and dreams of vengeance which have been so deeply embedded in the human soul from time immemorial. It promises a Paradise on earth, a Land of Heart’s Desire full of happiness and enjoyment, and—sweeter still to the losers in life’s game—humiliation of all who are stronger and better than the multitude. Logic and reasoning, which might show the absurdity of such dreams of bliss and revenge, are to be thrust aside. Marxism is thus the most radical of all reactions against the reign of scientific thought over life and action, established by Rationalism. It is against Logic, against Science and against the activity of thought itself—its outstanding principle is the prohibition of thought and inquiry, especially as applied to the institutions and workings of a socialist economy. It is characteristic that it should adopt the name “Scientific Socialism” and thus gain the prestige acquired by Science, through the indisputable success of its rule over life and action, for use in its own battle against any scientific contribution to the construction of the socialist economy. The Bolshevists persistently tell us that religion is opium for the people. Marxism is indeed opium for those who might take to thinking and must therefore be weaned from it.”

    In the end this is exactly what socialists play at today… never ever being able to use facts, logic or the scientific method to prove anything…

    This is why global warming is a socialists play for power… they use fantasy computer models to say how the world should work in they’re view not how it really does. It doesn’t matter if they are proven wrong and wrong again. In the end “socialism must be”.

  110. “But a minimal government of some sort is required to define, preserve, and defend those rights to the satisfaction of society. Without the codification of property rights, there cannot be any practical social agreement as to what the rights are. Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win unless a society (through the form of a limited government) steps in and demarcates the limits of rights.”

    Few problems here. You compare apples to oranges.

    “Without the codification of property rights”

    Why? Thats a government action… but lets assume its correct. I an anarchist codified this belong to me… and if you got a problem with that well you can take it up with my code enforce… mr ar-15.

    So I have “codified” property rights under anarchy.

    “there cannot be any practical social agreement”

    As a pure individualist I don’t believe in the concept of “social agreement”… hit the road before i codify your @ss with my ar-15.

    ” Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win”

    You sure my ar-15 disagrees…

    “unless a society (through the form of a limited government) steps in and demarcates the limits of rights.”

    Why? I have an ar-15 no need to any government I can do it myself.

    Now aside from the above arguments that are purely individualist in nature. A lot of your arguments are more along the line of government vs person or person vs person…

    If you look at it from a government vs government view your arguments fall apart. What “social contract” does the US government have with other government that they own said land? Who enforces? Etc etc etc.

    The concept that government must exist to enforce something is simply wrong on its face. To treat people somehow different from government is also wrong for the most part. No two government “enter a social contract” any different then any two people. So how do government enforce said social contract… the same way two people would. Thus you argument falls apart because in the end the government must do when it governs the same a a person must due in “anarchy”.

    And while I tend to agree with the quote… it is the simple reality… the difference between a subject and a citizen is a gun. Or more directly scientifically. The difference between a slave and a free person is the power through any means to keep ones self free.

    This is also why fascism is pure fantasy under the idea that somehow you can own but not control… or someone can control all but not own all.

    If you have the power to control it without any recourse through the owners power, then you own it period. Which is why fascism is simply a socialist fantasy where they pretend that they only control the means of production but in fact really they own and control the means of production.

  111. hehe poor mods are probably beating themselves with a hammer to the head, with all of the high end sociology being posted that they have to read through to make sure we’re at least somewhat behaving.

  112. temp, Why? I have an ar-15 no need to any government I can do it myself.

    Dobbs: “If you’re the police where are your badges?”
    Gold Hat: “Badges? We ain’t got no badges. We don’t need no badges! I don’t have to show you any stinkin’ badges!”
    Treasure of the Sierra Madre, 1948 (Movie)

    Go on. Tell me Gold Hat is a Capitalist and not an Anarchist.
    In fact, Dobbs, was quite toward the Anarchist side himself when paranoid.

    Howard, the prospector, was the Capitalist, trading his skill and knowledge for the labor of Dobbs and Curtain. In the end, Howard is left with his life, his sense of humor, and the respect of a Mexican village.

    An anarchist uses an AR-15.
    A Capitalist uses contract law.

  113. Wow! This turned out to be one of the most engaging queues of comments and arguments that I have read in a looooong time! Other than some over-the-top bloviated name calling, this was an engaging read! Who would have thought that a post about that weasel Connelly (his choice of avatar, not an appellation from me) would have turned to a heated and pointed discussion of capitalism, anarchy, socialism and it’s end state communism?!! References and quotes from 1984 and Stormship Troopers, as argument supports, provided wonderful recollections of treasured readings from decades ago.

    And then there was this ‘lob and volley':
    ” Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win”
    You sure, my ar-15 disagrees….
    Priceless!!!!
    MtK

  114. richardscourtney on January 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm

    John Whitman on January 31, 2013 at 1:46 pm

    With the above meanings we can expand.

    The meaning of socialism => it is the use of authoritarianism on any and all scales. It can accumulate to totalitarianism, and most classic economists say it has an inherent tendency toward total economic control by the state; to totalitarianism.

    Of essence in totalitarianism, authoritarianism, collectivism and socialism is why want them? I think they are wanted by people who think it is rational and moral to initiate force against an individual for any reason. I think no reason justifies that initiation of force against any individuals.

    John

    John Whitman:

    No! You cannot reasonably “expand” the meaning of socialism to distort it into the opposite of what it is. Your distortion is so malign that I refuse to copy it.

    Frankly, that is as bad as the insane ravings of the troll posting as ‘temp’.

    This thread is proving to be a clear demonstration to onlookers of how zealots will corrupt any statement of truth as a method to promote their objectives.

    You, temp and Connolley are of a kind. And this thread is demonstrating why your behaviour is dangerous to all.

    Richard

    – – – – – – – –

    richardscourtney,

    Socialism supports in law the physical force necessary to redistribute wealth of some minority, against their principles, for the benefit of the principles of ‘socializers’ who claim noble righteousness in crusades for ‘social benefits’.

    Authoritarianism is the means for socialization. As I just stated, socialization is achieved thru the authority of law to force wealth redistribution.

    I think socialists do not hide that essential nature of socialism. So I fail to see why you are against it. The many socialists who are my close associates are proud of what they do, they exclaim there victories gleefully to me as an arch individualist / capitalist.

    I, in principle, oppose for any reason the redistribution of wealth in that regard . . . absolutely and unequivocally. The primary fundamental moral imperative in my reason based philosophy is no person, government or social group can have any legal right to initiate force against an individual. Socialism is absolutely and in principle in violation of that moral imperative.

    And Richard, you are being extremely uncivil to me again like you did after Christmas on the two Monckton threads involving science/religion. I sincerely request you stop the lack of civility. I have never been uncivil to you.

    It is very disturbing for me to see you claim that I am a troll after all these many years and thousands of comments here and at other blogs.

    John

  115. Stephen Rasey says:
    January 31, 2013 at 4:33 pm

    I must admit I have no idea about the quote in question or movie it comes from. So going to skip over that part.

    “Howard, the prospector, was the Capitalist, trading his skill and knowledge for the labor of Dobbs and Curtain. In the end, Howard is left with his life, his sense of humor, and the respect of a Mexican village.”

    Thats fine but since I have no context for it I don’t know for sure.

    “An anarchist uses an AR-15.
    A Capitalist uses contract law.”

    Well capitalists of many types use contract law… but what is contract law? For some it is law backed by the governments use of force… for others it is simply law backed by they’re own use of force.

    Once again contract law doesn’t need the government to be in there. A contract can be between two individuals… and enforced by 1 or both of those individuals. The idea that one must have government is purely of the ever increasing socialist side of the scale.

    One doesn’t need the government to have a working economy… trade has happened all throughout history without a government and it will again in the future.

  116. Connelly, like Gore, and any who torture the truth, eventually discredit themselves; eventually seems too long to wait, but the authoritarian solutions are worse than the problem. Gore, Connelly, et al have created fertile ground for the growth of WUWT and a hundred+ other sites that flourish by allowing all kinds of confirmation bias to be aired. Nothing is more subject to confirmation bias than politics as one sees here in off topic and on topic posts alike. Roger Williams of Providence Plantation (and freedom of religion) fame said something like, “When you mix politics and religion, you get politics.” Similarly, when you mix science and politics, you get politics with many members of each side thinking their politics is justified because many on the other side believe AGW or creationism or any number of other things that are examples of politicized science and not science. Confirmation bias is so seductive that no one here is a virgin even though many here act as if they were.

  117. John Whitman says:
    January 31, 2013 at 5:32 pm

    “It is very disturbing for me to see you claim that I am a troll after all these many years and thousands of comments here and at other blogs.”

    This would be a bit my fault on that. I asked him to explain his socialism to me… and he tried and failed badly. He’s still a bit traumatized from that whole having to confront his ideals and finding them badly lacking.

    You’ll note that he’s being smart and completely refusing to post any info on how socialism will work in his view… 3rd rule of marx and he’s rocking it hard.

    We can sit here and nitpick about capitalism vs pure capitalism and where this extreme is because capitalism has rational thought and science to back it up. Sure we may never agree where a pure capitalist begins or ends… but we roughly the general area…

    Once you start defining what socialism is, the general area always includes hitler, stalin and so many other socialists who were heros of socialism until they weren’t socialists. Which means not only must they run through the huge hoops of arguing an illogical ideology but they must also make sure to make the “new” “better” socialism “vastly” different from the “old and broken” “not” socialism of the past… all while being exactly the same.

    As above within mises book… the easiest way to shut a socialist up is simply to ask him to explain in detail how his socialism will work. The smart one refuse to response… the useful idiots try and then fail.

  118. temp on January 31, 2013 at 3:36 pm

    Stephen Rasey on January 31, 2013 at 3:07 pm

    “But a minimal government of some sort is required to define, preserve, and defend those rights to the satisfaction of society. Without the codification of property rights, there cannot be any practical social agreement as to what the rights are. Where there is disagreement, those who deny the right will win unless a society (through the form of a limited government) steps in and demarcates the limits of rights.”

    Few problems here. You compare apples to oranges.

    – – – – – – –

    temp & Stephen Rasey,

    I am an individualist / capitalist. Government is beneficial to handle any conflict of individuals in some predetermined objective way. I think it is reasonable to expect to be able to successfully devise a necessary kind of government. I see courts, police and military. I find nothing else rationally needed for government.

    I cannot see a rational basis for no government.

    temp and Stephen Rasey, you seem to have a grasp of the fundamentals of the political concept of individual rights and capitalism contrasted to authoritarianism and socialism.

    AND temp => you get 10 bonus points in my book for quoting Von Mises.

    John

  119. RE: Rasey 1:04 pm It will be interesting to see if the page on Winston Smith gets edit activity. (5 edits since Dec. 4, 2012. Last Jan. 18.)

    Winston Smith Wikipedia page:

    Latest revision as of 21:48, 31 January 2013 (edit) (undo)
    William M. Connolley (talk | contribs)

    I guess he couldn’t help himself. It was the minor grammatical removal of 3 unnecessary words.

  120. John Whitman says:
    January 31, 2013 at 6:26 pm

    I have enjoyed talking to you and Rasey about this and as I am not an anarchist(but close) I agree with you some government is needed. I always found the best way to sum of much of the debate in the simple quote

    “Government is a necessary evil.”

    Collectivists/socialist focus only/almost only on the “necessary” while individualists focus only/almost only on the “evil” part. Simple reality is yes government is needed but unless heavily controlled and restricted it will kill you. Any form of what would be considered socialism/that half of the scale and your already looking at major problems. Socialism has a habit of only stopping once its run its course… similar to a plague but far more deadly.

    End run though I wish I could hang out and talk more since this is the first time in a long time i’ve run into some people with some knowledge about capitalism/economics/sociology that isn’t based solely in “useful idiot” propaganda. However going to be away from net for 3-4 days so this convo will die… but feel free to torment poor richard hehe.

    O and about Mises I do like him even if he does like the “big government” hehe.

  121. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia:

    List of [35] scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming

    The text beneath that heading adds the qualification that the list contains only “notable” scientists–presumably many more non-notable scientists qualify.

    Further, Wikipedia adds, “To be included on this list it is not enough for a scientist to be merely included on a petition, survey, or list. Instead, the scientist must make their own statement.” That must have cut down on the entries.

    I bet twice as many notable names could be added (e.g., R.G. Brown at Duke). I suggest that someone start a “Notable Scientific Skeptics Nomination Project” thread with the aim of adding them to WP’s list. WP will require a citation to their published or posted skeptical statements, but someone other than the nominator could track it down.

    Probably many names could be added by contacting notable scientists who have signed petitions or made online comments but not gone more formally on the record with their own quotations. They could be asked to make a post to that thread stating their position in their own words.

    I suggest that someone visit Wiki and enter Dr. Evans name on the list–it’s missing.

    Incidentally, I note that the number of names on the list has been cut from about 45, which it was three years ago, to 35. Presumably Connolley and his crew used nit-picking objections about the stature of the people listed and/or the wiki-worthy status of the sources in which their comments were made.

    It would be worthy of an article here on WUWT to compile a list of all the names that have been removed, as a way of demonstrating Wiki’s absurdity, bias, and corruption. Also, it would result in a nearly complete worldwide compilation of the names of prominent dissenting scientists in climate-related fields, which could be posted online and cited in the future. (Does such a list exist already?)

    Once our side compiles a list of prominent dissenting scientists, someone can insert a link to it into Wikipedia’s article on the topic prefaced by a remark to the effect that “A longer list, which includes short comments by the scientists involved, can be found HERE (link).” Let’s then see what feeble and/or outrageous excuse Connolley’s Crew uses to delete it–which we can then publicize.

  122. richardscourtney said, “An assertion that socialism is akin to National Socialism is as offensive as saying Judaism is akin to National Socialism.”

    That’s silly.

    I am surprised you would make this statement. Communism, National Socialism, and Fascism are all different flavors of socialism. Maybe you haven’t studied economics and history.

  123. The difference between a commie and a socialist is as follows;

    A communist will take everything you own and shoot you.

    A socialist is like a pcket thief. He will empty your pockets again and again and again. Finally you die, just as poor as when you were born.

  124. conoly is only a computer programmer, no scientist at all. this fact makes him mad. he wants to be more than he is and he is becoming utterly nasty when you remind this average main stream advocat of this fact.

  125. The politics discussion on this thread is very negative. Everyone is picking out what they don’t like and pointing out that it is bad.

    Well, nothing is perfect.
    A positive question to ask is, “What should we do?”. And I would propose the answer is “Eternal vigilance”.

    Temp makes it clear that property rights are an absolute good, to him. There can be several objections :
    Theological (who made property rights, God).
    Philosophical (why do you have the right to that.. all the world was free once and does that apply to intellectual property… what about free speech and democracy?)
    Practical (who enforces property rights, the man with the biggest gun… who makes him God and why can’t it be me).
    There may be others. So be vigilant when someone claims that somethinhg as simple as divided ownership of the means of production will ensure the freedom of the workers.

    Communism has the flaw of letting only a few people determine what the best use of the means of production is. And who makes them right? It is brutal when they are wrong.

    Fascism (including National Socialism) uses the love of the State, the Nation and the Leader to unify the will of the people an thus to ensure that the divided ownership of the means of production is channelled in the same way. Although, to work there must be coercion to ensure people stay aligned. It is brutal.

    Socialism also relies on coercion but only with the will of the people. There is a democratic process that permits the Governement to be kicked out if they take too much from the owners in order to build a society that benefits all…
    But only if the people are vigilant.

    So let us not call each other names. And let us not assume that the other is evil.

    NA pleae, let us not assume we are right.

  126. Friends:

    I said that in furtherance of their cause zealots will distort any truth and represent lies as being reality.

    I claimed that this is not confined to advocates of AGW such as Connolley but is typical of all extremist advocates.

    And I argued that constant defence against totalitarianism is needed if its imposition is to be avoided.

    In this thread my claims have been demonstrated by right-wing nut-jobs.
    None has asked me
    (a) why I am a socialist,
    (b) what socialism is, and
    (c) why I oppose totalitarianism.
    Had they done that then they could have argued with the realities I stated and represent. Instead they have proclaimed distortions of reality which they want to promote.

    Simply, they fear (know) they would lose a debate about the subject so they pretend the subject is other than it is.

    Zealots. Bigots. Totalitarians. They are all dangerous people.
    The danger they present has been demonstrated by right-wing nutters on this thread.
    Connolley’s actions on Wicki demonstrate how they do it.

    Richard

  127. richardscourtney says:
    February 1, 2013 at 1:39 am

    OK. I’ll bite, even though maybe you don’t view me as a ‘friend’.

    Why are you a socialist? ; and
    What (in your view) is socialism?

    – although philosophically it may be more sensible to take those in reverse order, since it may be that the reason(s) why you are a socialist stem automatically from your definition of it.

    In addition, I accept that I am not exactly asking you what the definition is because I don’t personally subscribe to objectivism, at least not in politics, religion etc. and, anyway, I’ve heard many different definitions from many people all of whom who claim to be socialists (although in fact a lot of them turn out to be social democrats).

  128. temp says: @ January 31, 2013 at 8:54 am
    …..Unless the government is insanely restricted you will at some point of people that randomly decided to put everything in ovens or something along that line.No matter how you “elect” the government the more power the government has the more evil it will due with it. Its why through all of history socialists have caused mass genocide, war and other general problems.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    You have it half right.

    As Richard S Courtney is trying to get across it is the Sociopaths who are the real problem and they really do not care about ‘right-wing’ or ‘left-wing’ only power and money. (sociopathic – Having the characteristics of a sociopath; Unconcerned about the adverse consequences for others of one’s actions)

    Socialism however is very appealing to this type of person because it is wonderful cover for their true motives. It allows them to take the high moral ground. ‘we are saving the earth and our future children’ sounds so much better that we want to place you in closed cities and treat you as corporate slaves (Agenda 21 and the UN Biodiversity Treaty)

    Unfortunately the brilliant sociopath is the person most likely to succeed in life because he has glibness and superficial charm. He lies extremely convincingly at the drop of a hat. He is callous, lacking in empathy, remorse, shame or guilt so he has no problem stabbing others in the back and climbing over them when they are no longer useful. If he is very smart he also knows enough to ‘blend in’ with normal society and is therefore very hard to spot. My brother, a self-made multimillionaire exemplifies these traits. (He is also a Marxist)

    p7
    During the past two centuries when the peoples of the world were gradually winning their political freedom from the dynastic monarchies, the major banking families of Europe and America were actually reversing the trend by setting up new dynasties of political control through the formation of international financial combines.
    These banking dynasties had learned that all governments must have sources of revenue from which to borrow in times of emergency. They had also learned that by providing such funds from their own private resources, they could make both kings and democratic leaders tremendously subservient to their will. It had proven to be a most effective means of controlling political appointments and deciding political issues.
    p7 Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley

    In studying the global conspiracy it is important to keep in mind that it was not any particular race or religion but the “passion for money and power” which has drawn the tycoons of world finance into a tightly-knit, mutual-aid society.
    p8 Tragedy and Hope, Carroll Quigley

    p13
    Reginald McKenna, 1924 – had been British Chancellor of the Exchequer 1915-1916
    I am afraid the ordinary citizen will not like to be told that the bankers can, and do, create money . … And they who control the credit of the nation, direct the policy of Government, hold in the hollow of their hands the destiny of the people.

    p16
    The scheme to set up a privately-controlled Federal Reserve System was supported by all of these dynastic banking families.
    p18
    It was decided that the Republican Party was too closely connected with Wall Street and the only hope of getting a central bank adopted would be to get the Democrats in power and have a new bill introduced which would be promoted into popular acceptance by claiming that it was a measure designed to strip Wall Street of its power. The Wall Street cadre thereupon set forth to achieve this in the presidential election of 1912.

    p18
    Perkins and J. P. Morgan and Company were the substance of the Progressive Party; everything else was trimming.
    p24
    There is a growing volume of evidence that the highest centers of political and economic power have been forcing the entire human race toward a global, socialist, dictatorial-oriented society.
    … The world hierarchy of the dynastic super-rich is out to take over the entire planet, doing it with Socialistic legislation where possible, but having no reluctance to use Communist revolution where necessary.

    http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/New_World_Order/Naked_Capitalist.html

    Socialism just happens to be a very useful tool for convincing the masses to do things that they would rebel against otherwise. It is the sheepskin covering the wolf as illustrated in the Fabian window… unveiled by the prime minister Tony Blair today (Thursday 20 April) during the centenary year of the Labour Party in its new home, the Fabian-founded London School of Economics and Political Science. At any one time in Westminster there are 200 Fabians at work. Although most are within the cabinet infiltration some many years ago has made sure whatever party you vote in Fabian ideas will be pushed upon the public. Across the Western world Fabians gnaw away at democracy.

  129. kai:

    At February 1, 2013 at 2:36 am you say to me

    richard, so you are friendly invited to express here your rejection of conolys idiotic agw totalitarism

    Thankyou.

    A clear exposition is provided by George Orwell in his novel ‘1984’ where the hero, Winston Smith’ is employed to alter historical documents such that history fits a current narrative. The purpose of this is that ‘He who controls the past controls the present. And he who controls the present controls the future.’

    In other words, the intention is to alter records of reality so the records become an accepted narrative of use to those whose purpose is the obtaining and use of unmitigated power.

    Please note that although Orwell’s novel ‘1984’ was set in a fascist (i.e. right wing) fictional society, the novel was about totalitarianism as it is applied by governments of any political philosophy.

    The actions of Connolley on Wicki are precisely such an alteration of recorded reality to become an accepted narrative so imposition of political actions can be justified by an accepted narrative of dangerous AGW.

    As the above article notes, Connolley has made thousands of such alterations to the information about AGW on Wicki.

    One example would be the excellent paper by Soon & Baliunas

    http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf

    where only negative trashing of it has been permitted on Wicki

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas

    This paper is important because it assesses thousands of published research papers that report the MWP was world-wide and was as warm or warmer than now. It flatly contradicts the ‘hockey stick’ of Mann, Bradley & Hughes which says the Northern Hemisphere did not experience the MWP.

    This ‘control’ of the information from Soon & Baliunas is precisely analogous to the actions of the fictional Winston Smith to create a narrative of the past with a view to justifying political action in the future.

    Truth and reality are important. Distortion of truth and reality to fit a narrative which justifies political action facilitates unfettered political power. And unfettered political power is totalitarianism.

    Connolley has used his power to edit Wicki thousands of times such that information on AGW is “adjusted” to fit a narrative of dangerous AGW which agrees with the facilitating of policies that his political party (i.e. the Green Party) promotes.

    I hope this brief answer is clear and sufficient.

    Richard

  130. Mr Green Genes:

    At February 1, 2013 at 2:54 am you ask me to state why I am a socialist and to explain socialism.

    I am a socialist because I believe the greatness of the human spirit permits any individual to do great things if given the opportunity.

    Socialism was founded by the Tolpuddle Martyrs long before Marx attempted his definition of it.

    Marx summarised his definition of socialism as being,
    “From each according to ability and to each according to need”.
    Of course, that definition is simplistic but it does express the difference between socialism and other political philosophies. Similar simplistic summaries would be:
    Communism – ‘From all according to ability and to all according to need.’
    Fascism – ‘From all according to the needs of the State and to all according to the needs of the State.’
    Libertarianism – ‘From all according to their desires and to all according to their ability.’
    etc.

    The Tolpuddle Martyrs were a group of Methodist Lay Preachers in the Dorset Village of Tolpuddle. The local farm labourers had their subsistence pay reduced by a pay cut. The Martyrs reacted to this by organising a strike to maintain the pay rates and rallied workers to strike by proclaiming Biblical authority with the rallying cry, “Jesus said, “The labourer is worthy of his hire” “. For this action the Tolpuddle Martyrs were deported to a penal colony in Australia.

    The Methodist Chapel of the Tolpuddle Martyrs is now a museum to their memory and socialists from around the world attend an annual Rally at Tolpuddle to celebrate the founding of socialism by the Martyrs.

    It is often rightly said that socialism owes more to Methodism than to Marx.

    As the summarising statement of Marx says, socialism is an extreme form of individualism. It says that – in so far as is possible – society will provide whatever an individual needs and an individual will return to society whatever he/she can.

    Needs are not mere desires. A child does not need sweets but may need medical attention.

    A need is that which enables an individual to flourish.
    So, for example, if a person demonstrates a need for university education (e.g. by passing exams) then society will try to provide it. And if the person uses that education to obtain a highly paid job then society will obtain taxes from him so others can be educated, too. Importantly, needs are not merely finances. In the case of this illustration the university education may be prevented by the need for the person to provide care to elderly or infirm relatives. In that case the state will provide the needed care.

    Any society can only do what it can afford to do. Its first priority is to grow its economy. Meeting immediate needs such that the costs limit economic growth defeats the objective of meeting needs. And taxing the rich so they leave for other countries defeats the objective of obtaining according to ability.

    And when there are resources they are not unlimited. Hence, democracy is an inherent and necessary part of socialism. The people need to decide priorities because not all needs can be met although that is desired.

    Importantly, democracy is a tool for obtaining the desires of the people and protecting the weak (protection is a need of the weak). Hence, total monies allowed to be spent on elections are limited by law. This prevents rich people or organisations using their financial power to distort elections by buying favours which the elected must repay. (In the recent UK General Election a victor in one seat overspent: the election was re-held, the ‘winner’ was jailed and he was not allowed to compete in the re-held election.)

    I hope this brief answer is adequate.

    Richard

  131. “No collectivism is the great evil which is totalitarianism/authoritarianism both of which are leftwing.”

    Oh, come now. There are definitely leftist examples of totalitarianism/authoritarianism, but there are right wing examples as well. Hitler wasn’t a leftist. The ayatola wasn’t a leftist. The Taliban isn’t leftist. The catholic church has had it’s authoritarian moments. Lest someone think that I’m biased, I have no doubt that were it possible for certain Christian ministers today to have absolute authority within a domain it would also turn towards an authoritarian scheme.

    But the Left vs Right thing is rather hilarious. I tend right. My wife’s family very left. On a recent visit they sat there badmouthing Bill O’Riely for spouting untruths and biased info while they were watching Chris Matthews. That they couldn’t see that they were two sides of the same coin I found hilarious (and in fact, in my opinion Chris Matthews is worse… he doesn’t even pretend that the other side deserves a chance to make their case.)

  132. richardscourtney says:
    February 1, 2013 at 4:09 am

    Richard, that more than adequate and I thank you for it.

    It’sfascinating not least because I could change one word in your opening paragraph and go along with it completely. My version would read:-

    I am a libertarian because I believe the greatness of the human spirit permits any individual to do great things if given the opportunity.

    The problem with our views is, of course, that people differ on their definitions of political standpoints, hence you (no doubt) find that many people equate socialism with communism and totalitarianism and, in turn, I find that many equate libertarianism with either anarchy or extreme capitalism.

    I found your paragraph summarising Marx particularly illuminating as it, to me at least, illustrates where most socialists (at least those who get anywhere near political power) get it wrong. Political socialism always appears as collectivist to a greater or lesser extent, as is witnessed by the formation of trades unions (together we stand, divided we fall) as an example. Don’t get me wrong, there is nothing inherently wrong with unions, it’s when the idea of unions morphs into “trade union power” that it goes wrong for me. A prime example of that was exemplified by the ‘closed shop’ whereby to get a job, one automatically had to join the appropriate trade union. I was forced to do this at the start of my career on British Rail and I found it to be profoundly undemocratic.

    It is also why in practice there is no difference between what Hitler did and what Stalin did. It doesn’t matter what labels those people put on themselves or what labels others put on them. The end result was actually the same – millions died simply because they didn’t fit in with the ideas of their rulers. Frankly, it was irrelevant to the jew under nazism or the cossack under stalinism why they were killed – they were dead anyway.

    I think totalitarianism happens when governments no longer view the governed as people but as objects and that has occurred down the ages from all sorts of different political points of view.

    At least you and I wholeheartedly agree about Connolley.

  133. Scottish Sceptic says: January 31, 2013 at 3:04 am

    The method you suggest is used in the Talmud. Rabbi A says X, Rabbi B says Y, and Rabbi C says Z. Rabbi D agrees in part with Rabbi A and also in part with Rabbi C. These are the parts… Here is his explanation….

    Quite an interesting book. Unfortunate that it is only taught to Jews these days. And not many of them. Very handy if you want to discover a suitable set of laws for ox goring.

  134. richardscourtney says: February 1, 2013 at 4:09 am

    I used to be a socialist. Until I figured out that the incentives were all wrong. In a static system – not too bad. In an advancing system you want the greatest rewards going to those making the greatest advances. And preferably you want some relatively unbiased system to handle the rewarding. The market system does that tolerably well. Commissars are subject to bias and bribery.

    “Well aren’t markets subject to such bribery?” Yes. But you have a lot more people to bribe.

    Keep this in mind, “Not everyone is altruistic as I am.”

    And don’t forget – popularity is neither a sign of wisdom nor a sign of a lack thereof. Take the great rush to Alcohol Prohibition in the US. High minded, well meaning, and a total disaster.

    The most glaring defect of socialism is the conceit, “There is no limit to the good you can do with other people’s labor.” Which runs up against, “Until other people decide to stop contributing their labor.”

  135. M Simon:

    re your post at February 1, 2013 at 5:33 am.

    I explained why I am a socialist and your post explains why you are not.
    We could debate our disagreements – they are significant – and it would be fun to do that ‘over a drink’. But that is not the purpose of this thread.

    My purpose in addressing why I am a socialist was to refute gross distortions and misrepresentations of (n.b. not mere disagreements with) the views of myself and countless others.

    Thanks for your post.

    Richard

  136. People are coming up with their own definitions of socialism in a thread that started out about William Connolley and his actions on Wikipedia.

    Here is a definition from The Concise Encyclopedia of Economics:
    Socialism—defined as a centrally planned economy in which the government controls all means of production—was the tragic failure of the twentieth century. Born of a commitment to remedy the economic and moral defects of capitalism, it has far surpassed capitalism in both economic malfunction and moral cruelty. ” This definition covers communism, National Socialism, and Fascism.

    Socialism is all about taking. It is almost impossible to view socialism in a positive light, unless you are among the recipient of someone else’s wealth,or you were the one making the decision to take. As Friederich Hayek said, “Socialism is slavery.”

    The one thing upon which most agree is that Connolley is a bad actor, and not particularly well versed in basic science.

  137. @richard 4:09am (quote from Marx)
    “From each according to ability and to each according to need”.

    Such a philosophy justifies slavery.

    “Doctor, you have the knowledge and ability to treat wounds and break fever.
    I am wounded and feverish. I have a need —- TREAT me.”
    The NEED becomes a RIGHT to DEMAND another’s labor.
    That is the indelibly ugly side of socialism and totalitarian systems.
    It is not an issue of “left or right” for it is
    a circle around to a common point tyranny

    It’s worse than slavery. Slavery has that pesky duty of care of an asset you own.
    Marx allows me to demand people pick my cotton during the day
    and they become society’s problem to meet their needs for the night.

    Contrast Marx with the opposite side of the circle where ones needs are met by those with ability through free exchange and mutual consent and mutual advantage:

    “In all proper relationships there is no sacrifice of anyone to anyone. An architect needs clients, but he does not subordinate his work to their wishes. They need him, but they do not order a house just to give him a commission. Men exchange their work by free, mutual consent to mutual advantage when their personal interests agree and they both desire the exchange. If they do not desire it, they are not forced to deal with each other. They seek further. This is the only possible form of relationship between equals. Anything else is a relation of slave to master, or victim to executioner
    ….
    “I came here to say that I do not recognize anyone’s right to one minute of my life. Nor to any part of my energy. Nor to any achievement of mine. No matter who makes the claim, how large their number or how great their need.
    “I wished to come here and say that I am a man who does not exist for others. ….
    “I recognize no obligations toward men except one: to respect their freedom and to take no part in a slave society. …..
    Howard Roark, courtroom scene (p. 684+), The Fountainhead (Ayn Rand 1943)

  138. rogerknights suggests:
    I suggest that someone visit Wiki and enter Dr. Evans name on the list–it’s missing.

    If you do add Dr Evans (presumably David Evans) it will be removed, but not because of bias. The included guidelines, while less specific than they should be, are of notable scientists. In addition to the other criteria listed, they must have an article on them in Wikipedia. This requirement is not climate specific, it is intended to keep every Tom, Dick and Harry from adding themselves to the list of alumni of Podunk high school, which happened every day. Create an article on Dr Evans, find the statement, and it should be included.

  139. Stephen Rasey:

    Your post at February 1, 2013 at 9:28 am takes one sentence out of context and distorts its meaning.

    Clearly, some can only address straw men and are incapable of discussing what is written.

    Richard

  140. Bob:

    At February 1, 2013 at 8:46 am you say

    People are coming up with their own definitions of socialism in a thread that started out about William Connolley and his actions on Wikipedia.

    Yes!
    I have been objecting to such “own definitions” from when right wing nutters started doing it in this thread. Your post does it again but by proxy.

    Please stop the egregious behaviour which is disrupting the thread.

    Richard

  141. Richard, you are the one who chose the famous Marx quote.

    As for being taken out of context, to “left wing nutters” (to use your mode of conversation), it is entirely within context. Marx is a socially acceptable form of slavery based upon need.

  142. Stephen Rasey wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/#comment-1214067

    “From each according to ability and to each according to need”.

    Such a philosophy justifies slavery.

    “Doctor, you have the knowledge and ability to treat wounds and break fever.
    I am wounded and feverish. I have a need —- TREAT me.”
    The NEED becomes a RIGHT to DEMAND another’s labor.

    Apparently, according to the ethical axioms of your belief system, it would be totally OK, if the majority in a society decided to let the sick members of the society just die, since otherwise you would create a right to be treated and that would equal slavery. So, from your point of view, a society that has the acknowledgment of Human Rights as axioms of its organizational structure, must be a really enslaved society. Consequently, you must see Human Rights as evil and as something a society should get rid off.

    I hope your ethical axioms are never going to be the basis for the organizational structure of human relations in modern society with each other. Otherwise, this would be a truly barbaric society.

  143. @Jan Perlwitz, those are the only two possible choices you see?
    That society decides to assist (slavery through taxation) or “let them die” by forcibly preventing assistance?

    There is a big, tyrannical difference between
    1. Tom’s NEED giving him a RIGHT to Harry’s labor. (Marx)
    and
    2. Harry CHOOSING to voluntarily assuage Tom’s need, either through charity, bargain or trade to mutual advantage. If Harry won’t help, there is Dick, George, Mary, Nancy…. (Rand, Friedman, Hayek)

    In #1, Tom’s NEED is backed up by the Tax Man who is then backed up by an armed Marshall.
    In #1, it is not possible to satisfy all NEEDS, therefore someone whom the Marshal reports to must define what NEEDS will be satisfied and which WILL NOT — where it will be illegal to satisfy those needs. #1 is a road paved with good intentions.
    In #2, no one is preventing Tom from being assisted. There is no Marshall enforcing a society’s decisions one way or the other.
    Which of these worlds is the more barbaric? Which the more authoritarian?

    I hope your ethical axioms are never going to be the basis for the organizational structure of human relations in modern society
    The feeling is mutual. We’ll leave it to other readers to decide whose axioms are the greater danger to their liberty.

  144. @Jan Perlwitz 11:02am totally OK, if the majority in a society decided
    What a revealing choice of words……
    What does “majority” decision have to do with rights?

    Can a society create rights with a 52% majority?
    If so, then a society can remove rights with the same margin. That would never do.

    To carry on the argument from above, rights do not come from nature; a Right to Life doesn’t prevent drowning in the ocean. Neither do rights come from government, otherwise rights would change with governments and 52% majorities. Rights come from a Social Compact that enables the government to function. In the USA, it is the Bill of Rights, Constitutions, and English Common Law. Magna Carta is a perfect example of a people codifying rights as counterforce to government.

    The definition of rights is not a unanimous decision by society, but it is a super-super-majority. Look at what it takes to adopt an amendment to the US Constitution: 2/3’s of each House and Senate followed by 3/4 of State Legislatures. Even if you believe the SCOTUS can ultimately create rights, it is a slow process with many layers.

    create a right to be treated and that would equal slavery.
    What RIGHTS do we have to COMPELL another to do our bidding?
    Rights PREVENT actions by the government against us.

  145. Stephen Rasey:

    At February 1, 2013 at 1:45 pm you ask

    Can a society create rights with a 52% majority?
    If so, then a society can remove rights with the same margin. That would never do.

    Such appalling ignorance and naivete!
    Of course the answer to both your questions is YES.

    Controlling people with the power to give or remove rights (e.g. the right to live) is what civilsed society is all about.

    Indeed, the right to state information without censorship (i.e. the right to free speech) is the subject of this thread.

    The fact that you pose the question should give you reason to consider the nature of your posts in this thread.

    Richard

  146. Steve says January 30, 2013 at 1:58 pm

    “With over 5000 articles he’s edited, it makes you wonder if Mr. Connolley was employed by someone or some organization specifically for the task.”

    That can’t be true…only those who question CAGW would be paid to constantly edit wiki and to flood forums with posts…

    LOL!

    The “over 5000 articles he’s edited” raises the question in my mind, were these individual edit “events” or 5,000 individual articles POSSIBLY edited many, many times over (which would not include reversions, deletion of other’s edits, deletion of added materials or whole pages) in that time period?

    IOW, does re-editing the same article count as another ‘peg count’ or no?

    WMC could be the all-time Wiki edit-winner depending how the scoring is kept …

    .

  147. Stephen Rasey wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/#comment-1214252

    @Jan Perlwitz 11:02am totally OK, if the majority in a society decided
    What a revealing choice of words……
    What does “majority” decision have to do with rights?

    and then you answer your own question:

    The definition of rights is not a unanimous decision by society, but it is a super-super-majority. Look at what it takes to adopt an amendment to the US Constitution: 2/3′s of each House and Senate followed by 3/4 of State Legislatures. Even if you believe the SCOTUS can ultimately create rights, it is a slow process with many layers.

    What again was your point here? A 2/3 majority is still a majority. I didn’t say anything about 52%, or about the specific procedural requirements for legal changes in real society as it is, e.g. in United States. The whole point looks very much like a straw man you try to create here.

    The topic I addressed was the ethical axioms of your belief system about what your ideal society should look like. It’s about a speculative society, based on your ethical axioms. How one would get from real society to your Ayn-Rand fantasy land wasn’t the topic.

    As for your analogy:

    a Right to Life doesn’t prevent drowning in the ocean.

    The analogy is wrong. We are not talking about just drowning in the ocean. The more correct analogy is letting someone deliberately drown in the ocean, although resources were available to prevent the drowning.

  148. It is disappointing to see Colin Porter use a logical fallacy of [poisoning] the well in an attempt to discourage people from reading an excellent summary of Connolley’s Wikipedia antics,

    http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

    Regardless I can personally verify many of the allegations made in the article to be true. It simply requires doing some research on Wikipedia as just about everything is archived.

  149. Stephen Rasey:

    At February 1, 2013 at 4:35 pm you attempt to distort what I have said in this thread by asking

    @richard
    You hold we can remove the right to free speech with a majority vote?

    Of course I do: it is simply a matter of practical reality.

    Power is the ability to enforce actions on others.
    In a representative democracy any majority can enforce its will on a minority by enactment of laws, and controlling that is the subject of political philosophy (of which your posts display great ignorance).

    The power of a majority is not the only source of power (e.g. Capone, Kray brothers, etc.).

    All ‘rights’ can be removed by those with sufficient power.
    Indeed, the power of one man to inhibit free speech in a specific forum is the subject of this thread.

    Next time you want to distort what I have said then please remember that your stupid assertions are so stupid they can be simply refuted.

    Richard

  150. Stephen Rasey says:
    February 1, 2013 at 4:35 pm
    @richard
    You hold we can remove the right to free speech with a majority vote?

    It might appear Richard’s definitions are narrowly defined, and irrespective of other governing documents (e.g. the Magna Carta Libertatum AKA “The Great Charter of the Liberties of England”, the Declaration of Independence) and codifying ‘law’ (e.g. the US Constitution vis-a-vis the “government limiting” clauses espoused and enumerated in the first 10 amendments).

    It is a classical “domain and range” problem wherein Richard limits the domain to that of “man”, exclusive of anything else (greater even) to win this argument.

    .

  151. To R.S. Courtney;

    Socialism will allways end up with the few, the elite, opressing the many. Maybe not by shooting, but via slavery. Slavery by means of the many working for the elite’s almost religious belief of “the greater good.”

    The tax level will allways go up, up, up. When , like in Norway, the tax level is, say 60-70% (Just sum up income tax of, say, 40-50% for the average, VAT and what have you….) it will mean that 60-70% of your working time is working for the State, not for youself. ( It is 80% for me)

    Working for the State 70-80% of your time is 70-80% slavery. And there is nothing you can do about it. You can never get rid of such a system if it has taken hold. The EU is going bancrupt now because of it.
    Socialism also leads to corruption, and hypocracy of unimaginary levels. It never ends. The Norwegian politicians are travelling the world preaching environmentalism, while at the same time their version of socialism is actually financed by income from fossile fuels. ( Discovered by British Petroleum).

    I see you declare yourself as a socialist yourself. And that perhaps explains why you get so angry here? People with such beliefs tend to get angry when their beliefs are questioned.

  152. _Jim:

    Your post at February 2, 2013 at 8:05 am is nonsense.

    You are talking bollocks. I pointed out practical realities. If you think e.g. The Great Charter can overcome those realities then you are deluded.

    If you don’t see that you are deluded then ask a Bosnian, or a Reandan, or …

    Richard

  153. wikeroy:

    In your post at February 2, 2013 at 9:03 am you ask me

    I see you declare yourself as a socialist yourself. And that perhaps explains why you get so angry here?

    No!
    I am angry at the offensive, insulting and untrue smears posted in this thread of which your post is an example. Read your own words and consider how you would regard them having been directed at you.

    Richard

  154. Courtney,
    I have read through the whole thread, and noone has smeared you, as you say.

    But you dish it out;

    richardscourtney says: February 2, 2013 at 11:04 am
    -“Your post at February 2, 2013 at 8:05 am is nonsense.”
    -“You are talking bollocks. I pointed out practical realities. If you think e.g.
    The Great Charter can overcome those realities then you are deluded.”

    richardscourtney says: February 2, 2013 at 2:41 am
    -“Next time you want to distort what I have said then please remember
    that your stupid assertions are so stupid they can be simply refuted.”

    richardscourtney says: February 1, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    -“Such appalling ignorance and naivete!”

    richardscourtney says: February 1, 2013 at 10:09 am
    -“I have been objecting to such “own definitions” from when right wing nutters started doing it in this thread.

    richardscourtney says:January 31, 2013 at 2:35 pm
    -“Frankly, that is as bad as the insane ravings of the troll posting as ‘temp’.”

    So;
    “Nonsense”, “Bollocks”, “Deluded”, “Stupid”, “Ignorance”, “Naive”, “Right Wing Nutter”, “Insane Ravings”, “Troll” is the words you throw at others.

    And I read the others postings; The right wing nutters. Perfectly clear reasoning and discussions.

    I try to understand the anger you display here, when you clearly have many interesting arguments regarding climate change and the IPCC.

  155. The other Phil says it could not be a ban since this requires community involvement. But blocking 2000 contributors seems much the same.

  156. Niff,

    It is not much the same. Many blocks are what I call technical. You may be thinking that if you had an account, and annoyed some others, you might get blocked. That can happen, but there are many other reasons for block. For example, if someone registered the user name WattUpWithThat, and then tried to edit the article about this site, the user name would get blocked. They would be allowed, even invited, to register a different name. They could register JoeQJones, and then edit the article. The individual behind the name is quite able to contribute, they just need to use an allowable user name. In contrast. bans apply to individuals. If you get banned because you repeatedly violate policy, and try to evade the ban using a different user name, that second user name might get blocked. and the third. And, literally, in some cases, the 100th. Bans apply to people. Banning someone is a big deal and cannot be unilaterally done by any individual, not even Jimbo Wales. 2000 blocks is not a lot. 200 bans would be, but Connelley has banned zero editors.

  157. Human kind’s nature, our specific identity as an entity, should be the basis of designing a government that does not violate human nature. Government should not aid our human nature, it should be limited to recognizing what is required for our nature’s potentiality.

    The primary task before entering a political discussion is to clearly identify human nature. We started the political discussion in this thread without that necessary identification of human nature.

    Shall we do that now? I am up for it.

    As to the those initiating and maintaining the talk of right wing nut job versus left wing nut job, it is unproductive. Lets stick with logical concepts and disciplined reasoning. Lets not resort to imprecise labels like left or right and conservative or liberal, etc, etc.

    I look forward to calm and civil pursuit of this attempt at a clear political balance sheet.

    John

  158. John Whitman says:
    February 2, 2013 at 7:12 pm

    “Human kind’s nature, our specific identity as an entity, should be the basis of designing a government that does not violate human nature.”

    A very good point. If so, I think it is important to recognise that there is two main human natures; The feminine brain versus the masculine brain. The sex of the brain is set by hormones ( while still in fetus stage)

    http://www.shb-info.org/sexbrain.html

    Example;
    -The Feminine brain wants safety and security, etc etc. ( Family, children…)
    -The Masculine brain wants challenges and change, etc etc.( Hunting, exploring….)

    It seems evolution shows us that this combination is the “strongest”. ( More children, etc etc)

    If you let the feminine brain go to far in trying to obtain 100% safety and security, it will violate the freedom of the masculine brain.

    If you let the masculine brain go too far regarding challenges and change, it will violate the safety and the security of the feminine brain.

    And so on……

  159. A lady friend of a friend I know of is a paid activist and that is her total job. She organizes protests on any number of topics. It means rounding up useful fools from campuses mainly which, oddly, seems to be a huge resource of non-think-for-yourself sheep. Who the heck is running such a show. What have we done wrong in this society.

  160. Some thoughts on ‘What does “majority” decision have to do with rights?’ (Feb 1, 1:45 pm)

    Do rights exist? Most certainly.
    Much law specifically references them. These are Rights mentioned specifically in Amendments 1 through 10 of the US Constitution.
    1: the right of the people peaceably to assemble
    2: right of the people to keep and bear Arms
    4: right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures
    6: right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury….
    7: In Suits at common law, …the right of trial by jury shall be preserved,
    9: The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

    Where do rights come from?
    From Nature? I do not think that holds, but some people do.

    “1st. That there are certain natural rights, of which men, when they form a social compact, cannot deprive or divest their posterity; among which are the enjoyment of life and liberty, with the means of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining happiness and safety. — First of 40 amendments proposed by Virginia, ,
    27 June 1788

    Do Rights come from Government? No.
    Government SECURES rights. The history of 1774-1804 is ample proof that the concept of rights predates the formation of the different US governments.

    In the
    Declaration of Independence
    , where “one people dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, ”

    We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.–That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, –That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. ….

    Do rights come from a Majority of Society? No.
    From the same document that said “self-evident that all men are created equal”, was struck <a href=http://daverosenberg.net/articles/IndependenceDay.htm Jefferson's anti-slavery draft clause.

    he [King George III] has waged cruel ware against human nature itself, violating its most sacred rights of life and liberty in the persons of a distant people who never offended him, captivating and carrying them into slavery in another hemisphere, and to incur miserable death in their transportation thither. … determined to keep open a market where men should be bought and sold, he has prostituted his negative for suppressing every legislative attempt to prohibit or to restrain this execrable commerce;

    S. Carolina, N. Carolina, and Georgia demanded the passage stricken before they’d give the required unanimous approval of the Declaration. New England Maritime didn’t mind the trade continuing, too. A minority was the critical factor in failing to secure the rights of another group of people.

    I conclude Rights come from centuries of a human culture and history. Government can fail to secure these rights, but Rights have been with us at least as long as the concept of slavery, outliving empires, dynasties, and governments.

  161. (Links and summaries supporting 2:07pm above)
    In Federalist 84, (Hamilton, 28 May, 1788) wrote that enumerating Rights in the Constitution might do more harm than good, for it would limit rights under government rather than securing rights above government.

    It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince. Such was MAGNA CHARTA….the PETITION OF RIGHT assented to by Charles I., … the Declaration of Right presented by the Lords and Commons to the Prince of Orange in 1688, … an act of parliament called the Bill of Rights. ….

    But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, …..

    I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and, on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power….

    In the end, Hamilton lost the argument. 11 of 13 States had ratified the Constitution, but there was opposition in many quarters that Rights were not adequately protected. Madison (8 June 1789) urged the House concentrate on the Bill of Rights amendments as a committee of the whole:

    [The Public] may think we are not sincere in our desire to incorporate such amendments in the constitution as will secure those rights, which they consider as not sufficiently guarded. The applications for amendments come from a very respectable number of our constituents, and it is certainly proper for congress to consider the subject, in order to quiet that anxiety which prevails in the public mind:
    ….but I believe that the great mass of the people who opposed [The Constitution], disliked it because it did not contain effectual provision against encroachments on particular rights, and those safeguards which they have been long accustomed to have interposed between them and the magistrate who exercised the sovereign power: nor ought we to consider them safe, while a great number of our fellow citizens think these securities necessary.

    The genius of Madison was that the House did not lose its way itemizing rights, but fenced off broad areas where this and future Congresses “shall make no law” so as to “secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity.”

    The concept that Government SECURES Rights, not create, nor grant, nor guarantee them is in some case law. This concept is not limited to a couple of decades in the late 18th Century.

    Men are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights,-‘life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;’ and to ‘secure,’ not grant or create, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor’s injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor’s benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation.
    BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

    The first ten amendments to the Constitution, adopted as they were soon after the adoption of the Constitution, are in the nature of a bill of rights, and were adopted in order to quiet the apprehension of many, that without some such declaration of rights the government would assume, and might be held to possess, the power to trespass upon those rights of persons and property which by the Declaration of Independence were affirmed to be unalienable rights.
    UNITED STATES v. TWIN CITY POWER CO., 350 U.S. 222 (1956)

Comments are closed.