UPDATE: The error has now been completely eliminated from the article. Details below.
Guest post by James Padgett
As many readers are aware, the culture surrounding the climate change topic area of Wikipedia has been a microcosm of climate science for nearly a full decade.
This is not a compliment.
When you read the Climategate emails and see discussions of finding people to investigate and discredit your ideological opponents – that is Wikipedia. When you read about the IPCC’s usage of the WWF and students in composing their Climate Bible (KJV) – that is Wikipedia. When you read about “climate scientists” conspiring to get other scientists fired for challenging the orthodoxy – that is Wikipedia.
In short, Wikipedia does not care about truth, and certainly not doubts, it cares about message.
And that’s what this article is about, how the truth, when made plainly clear, is suppressed in favor of misinformation that is on message.
Early last month I was browsing the Wikipedia article on the Soon-Baliunas controversy. The “mainstream” view on the topic is that the paper was so horrible that several editors resigned from Climate Research in protest. Those following the Climategate emails know that there was a strong and shady behind-the-scenes effort to both discredit the paper and show journals what happens to their reputations and hairlines when you dare to publish research contradictory to the “settled science.”
Part of this public relations process, of which Wikipedia is an integral component, involves rewriting facts, refocusing views and never ever giving in to rationality or reality.
How was this done in the Soon-Baliunas article? I don’t have the time or inclination to point out all the bias and opinion-herding in the article, but I’ll show you the sentence that initially caught my eye back in early December:
“The Soon and Baliunas paper had been sent to four reviewers during publication, all of whom recommended rejecting it.” (1)
Now isn’t that interesting? Why would they publish the paper if all of the reviewers recommended rejecting it? It certainly would be quite the scandal if that villainous Chris de Freitas pushed to publish it under such conditions.
A little digging shows that Wikipedia used to have the correct sentence – that none of the reviewers recommended rejecting it. In fact, an anonymous user tried to revert the article back to this correct version. The response was typical – change it back and then have one of the administrator gatekeepers, “MastCell,” protect the article from anonymous users. After all, the only people who could ever be correct are the Champions of the Earth.
But that wasn’t the end of it. That wouldn’t be a good demonstration of the obstinacy of the keeper of climate truth.
The few non-anonymous users who cared about the article being accurate pointed this out. Pages and pages of argument resulted, with the typical gatekeepers like Dave Souza and Stephan Schulz relying on a single source to make their claim, while ignoring numerous other sources, not to mention common sense, which contradicted their assertion regarding the reviewers.
What was their source?
An article in the Guardian by Fred Pearce.
What sources contradicted this?
Chris de Freitas himself publically showed this email (also here from Climategate), which would support my view – and he privately made it crystal clear to me that everyone recommended publication.
Of course, de Freitas would be biased….
But Clare Goodess, of the ever-reputable University of East Anglia, an editor who resigned over the incident, ambiguously intoned in a manner subject to much interpretation:
“The publisher eventually asked to see the documentation associated with the review of the paper – which had apparently gone to four reviewers none of whom had recommended rejection. Otto Kinne concluded that the review process had been properly conducted.” (2)
So instead of relying on common sense, original documents, and the statement, at the time, of an involved scientist certainly not supportive of the Soon-Baliunas paper, weight was given to Fred Pearce’s article which was written seven years after the fact.
Naturally, I was curious as to where Mr. Pearce received his information. He was friendly and helpful, despite his busy schedule with the holidays and Durban, and attempted to find the original source for the claim in his article. Unfortunately, he could not find the original source in his records. He does agree that the statement was, in his words, “almost certainly wrong” and theorizes that he may have misread Clare Goodess’ statement on the matter.
So that should settle it right? This article itself could be a “reliable source” to remove the error from Wikipedia. After all, Real Climate is quoted extensively throughout the climate change articles. Perhaps, but not when you have obsessive-compulsive activists who care more about their cause than their integrity.
However, this incident does bring some other questions to mind.
Andrew Montford, author of the Hockey Stick Illusion, was inquiring with Pearce about his source as well and was curious if Michael Mann had been the one to mislead Pearce. This is an interesting theory, and I had been wondering if this was the case myself both due to Mann’s behavior regarding this incident, his well-known inclination towards manipulating journalists, as well as the original wording in Pearce’s article, which was:
“But many on the 10-man editorial board agreed with Mann. They concluded that their colleague de Freitas had ignored the anonymous advice of four reviewers to reject the paper.”
There is no way to know for certain; it certainly isn’t clear. All I know is that Mann and his friends, and this is the short list, when confronted with a paper that challenged their own work, threatened to boycott the journal, tried to get the editor fired, tried to get the authors fired, and was even so juvenile as to file a complaint against the New Zealand Herald for not letting him publish his attacks against de Freitas.
Obviously, he is the quintessential climate scientist of our day – and I hope one day that Wikipedia gives him due credit as such.
Cheers,
James Padgett
=======================
UPDATE: Following a conversation on Wikipedia founder Jimbo Wales’ talk page the error has been removed despite initial resistance from those who perpetrated the misinformation:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Jimbo_Wales#Activism_at_Wikipedia.3F
Also, I’d like to thank Nona, who tried to correct the error earlier as an anonymous user.
Good to see Connolley himself here. And you make the important point that WP deals with verifiability rather than truth. This I accept as an unfortunate necessity; it is why I think WP is generically unfit for cutting-edge science and “fringe” issues, at least in its present incarnation.
However, there is still a problem. Blogs like this are considered “not reliable sources” – because they disagree with mainline science – but WUWT came into existence precisely because the standards of truth right across the board at the conventional level in Climate Science, both the peer-reviewed papers, the media representations, and the peer-review system itself, are all challenged here, consistently, courteously, and with considerable scientific acumen at its best, as being sub-standard. To simply relegate WUWT to “unreliable” is to ignore a very important signal by shouting that the noise overpowers the signal.
> Good to see Connolley himself here.
Since you make a point of courtesy later let me point out that referring to someone by surname only and omitting their title is impolite. This may help.
> WP is generically unfit for cutting-edge science
Wiki pretty well *intends* to be unfit for cutting edge science. It isn’t a newspaper, and it isn’t a blog. Its an encyclopaedia. It definitely doesn’t welcome fringe science. My own view is that even science papers in Real Journals should wait for a respectable period of time – at a bare minimum three months – before being included. But I lost that argument a long time ago.
> Blogs like this are considered “not reliable sources” – because…
I fear I’ll have to disagree with your “because”. I doubt there is any point arguing; my opinion of WUWT isn’t a secret and is no more likely to change than yours.
I wouldn’t get too desperate for compliments if I were you (note spelling). Comparing via google WUWT and shows just a teensy disparity in the number of refs and what they are used for. RC is used for sourcing science. WUWT isn’t.
RiC: “Dr” will do.
(oh great I fouled up my HTML. Just click on the links, you’ll get the point).
Thank you WC for making my point. The chief reason we climate skeptics need our own wiki (IMO) is to meet the WP:RS criteria in order to convey the science behind the truths that humankind needs ie the nonsense and bad science of CAGW.
And I have to agree with your assessment of the CEI / Heartland wiki in its current incarnation – though I’d put it more politely.
Robert in Calgary says:
January 12, 2012 at 2:29 pm
Ah yes, the mighty Lord Connolley, out to save the planet from a phony crisis, waxes on about smugness and purity.
High comedy indeed.
Still not as funny as vintage Billy Connolly
> The chief reason we climate skeptics need our own wiki…
I think you’re wrong. The reason wiki is so successful is because its so successful; it is the top hit for just about everything (I exaggerate; you know what I mean). If you want Joe Public to read *your* wiki… then you’re probably doomed. They won’t even know it exists. This applies to the people you’d call Warmists too, of course.
The other reason is that wiki benefits very much from having opposing views combine. When they clash it gets messy, of course. But if you create a walled garden of you own you risk ending up as a joke like Conservapedia (that particular article is so ludicrous that I link from it on my wiki page for fun).
Looks like Mr Connolley was effective at making sure the behind the scenes clash of opposing views didn’t get reflected on the front end of the site. Until he was binned for rule bending of course…
From “HISTORY OF CLIMATE GETS ´ERASED´ONLINE, More than 5,000 entries rewritten to hype global warming agenda,” 12/29/2009, at http://www.wnd.com/2009/12/119745/ , short summary:
“A new report reveals a British scientist and Wikipedia administrator [Mr. William M. Connolley] rewrote climate history, editing more than 5,000 unique articles in the online encyclopedia to cover traces of a medieval warming period – something Climategate scientists saw as a major roadblock in the effort to spread the global warming message.”
“Recently hacked e-mails from the University of East Anglia´s Climate Research Unit expose a plot to eliminate the Medieval Warm Period, a 400-year era that began around A.D. 1000, the Financial Post´s Lawrence Solomon reports.”
“Solomon revealed that Connolley, one man in the nine-member team [= Gavin Schmidt, Michael Mann, Eric Steig, William Connolley, Stefan Rahmstorf, Ray Bradley, Amy Clement, Rasmus Benestad, and Caspar Ammann.] who is a U.K. scientist, a software engineer and Green Party activist, took control of Wikipedia´s entries to see that any trace of the true climate history would be erased.”
“Beginning in Februari 2003, Connolley rewrote Wikipedia entries on global warming, the greenhouse effect, the instrumental temperature record, the urban heat island, on climate models and on global cooling, according to the report. In February, he began editing the Little Ice Age. By August, he began to rewrite history without the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned to the hockey-stick chart.”
“Through his role as a Wikipedia administrator, Connolley is said to have created or rewritten 5,428 unique Wikipedia entries.”
“”When Connolley didn´t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it – more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand,” Solomon wrote. “When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred – over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions.”
“Through his control of the Wikipedia pages, Connolley is said to have “turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.””
“Facts about the Medieval Warm Period and criticism of global warming doctrine were purportedly scrubbed from Wikipedia´s pages.”
“”User William M. Connolley strongly pushes his POV [point of view] with systematic removal of any POV which does not match his own,” his accuser charged in a written deposition. “His views on climate science are singular and narrow.””
Conclusion
Mr. Connolley et al you have turned Science into Junk Science, with your Global Warming Hoax agenda, and its final objective of a Global Governance.
SAY NO TO GLOBAL WARMING HOAX
SAY NO TO JUNK SCIENCE
SAY NO TO GLOBAL GOVERNANCE
William M. Connolley says:
January 12, 2012 at 3:19 pm
Since you make a point of courtesy later let me point out that referring to someone by surname only and omitting their title is impolite.
Worrying about it is a sign of a fragile ego.
WIMC
“As for socks I have none and never had. Are you mistaking me for someone who would write a whole article about climate on wiki and not reveal that arbcomm had banned them?”
I notice that you didn’t address my second question. Are you coordinating with your merry band off-sight in violation of Wikipedia rules as you have been caught doing in the past?
Tom: your premises are wrong. If you manage to re-state the question in a form that makes sense, I’ll write some text in reply.
LS: ta.
Anon: the exciting report you link to and reproduce is just the LS/JD column come again, and is no better for being re-hashed. It shows exactly the same amusing errors in understanding wiki that I linked to before. I won’t bother rebut it again if you repost it in yet another guise. None of this is secret, it is all easy to check. Perhaps some of the self-proclaimed “skeptics” here would be skeptical enough of their own side’s propaganda to investigate it and comment?
William M. Connolley says: January 12, 2012 at 3:19 pm
> Good to see Connolley himself here. [he’s quoting me]
Since you make a point of courtesy later let me point out that referring to someone by surname only and omitting their title is impolite. This may help.
“omitting their title is impolite” I note your link is not to an “objective” statement but to your own page. I frequently see here, and use myself, surnames without title, and never until now with any malice aforethought intended or taken. But I shall now use WMC if I want brevity.
WMC, I’ve noted your other comments and am pleased to find they are much as I would expect.
I see William Connolley defending his actions as being within the rules of Wikipedia (we know he has violated them). But the one thing he seems to be avoiding is any committment to real science or the truth. This article was started by pointing out a gross negligence on the part of Wiki and the editors in, at the very least a misrepresentation, and at the most likely a lie. Yet he is smart enough not to defend the lie or lying. Instead, like all good minions, he falls back on “That’s the rules”.
Real scientist understand that real science is the discovery of new rules and new knowledge. Not the reliance on antiquated rules set down to inhibit knowledge from being spread. The Catholic Church had a similar argument in Galileo’s time, for pretty much the same reason – keep the dogma intact, and the masses in line. It had nothing to do with real science.
Connolley, you talk about “propaganda” as if you aren’t Mr. Propaganda himself. That’s pure psychological projection on your part, chump. Why are you so terrified of free speech and different points of view? The truth is out there; it just isn’t in you. You attack the truth like it was your enemy. I suppose it is.
> I see William Connolley defending his actions
Are we still talking about the article this blog is about? If so, no I’m not, since I never edited that bit. Check the article history.
I do defend my actions, but I’m not doing so here, because I know you’re not interested (if you are interested, feel free to pull up any diffs you think reprehensible). I’m just trying to explain to you what the rules are, and (in some instances) why I disagree with them.
Nice try at misdirection. Perhaps you would like to read my entire comment and not just the first line, and then make your own assumptions about what I am saying? I care not about your defense, any more than I care about Bill Clinton’s definition of the word is. What is evident in your postings here is that you go to great lengths to defend your actions as legal (and as previously indicated, they have not always been so as has been proven), but not as honest, truthful or scientifically sound.
This is not a court of law – or even a Wikipedia review board. You are simply wasting your time and this space as you do not have to defend yourself to us or anyone else. But you do have to account for both your unethical and unscientific behaviour. However, as clearly stated, we are not the accountants.
> you go to great lengths to defend your actions as legal (and as previously indicated, they have not always been so as has been proven), but not as honest, truthful or scientifically sound
Now I haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. For ease of reference, yes I defend my actions as honest, and truthful, and scientifically sound. If you disagree, post actual diffs or quotes from me, not vagueness.
Sorry Bill, The proof is in your comments. I do not intend to pollute this thread with reposting your comments since they are here for everyone to read. That you cannot understand the simple written word does not bode well for the owners of Wikipedia.
PJ: No diffs, eh? Not a single edit out of all those thousands of pages that you can find any objection to. Now that *is* revealing: either of my innocence, or your laziness. You don’t believe in the former so I think you’re obliged to confess to the latter.
Smokey: he constantly changes and deletes the comments of those whose views he personally disagrees with – really? “constantly?”. OK, here are my last 1000 edits. Please point out a few.
Does everyone see Connolley’s hypocrisy on display? He can post his comments here without them being changed or deleted – but he constantly changes and deletes the comments of those whose views he personally disagrees with. He is the reason that Wikipedia is widely perceived as a propaganda blog promoting Connolley’s false “carbon” agenda.
Connolley’s actions on Wikipedia are unscientific and self-serving, motivated by Connolley’s low self-esteem and personal insecurity. Connoley simply cannot allow different points of view to be posted, because they would show that his anti-science narrative is false. Therefore, he censors the comments of people more knowledgeable and truthful tha he is. That is the antithesis of the scientific method, and Connolley should know better than to come here spouting his nonsense.
Connolley, you cannot hide your bias. You cannot even see that you have destroyed any credibility you may once have had. Your grandchildren will hang their head in shame once all has been revealed. Funny that you think you are “saving the planet” for them.
WMC
“Tom: your premises are wrong. If you manage to re-state the question in a form that makes sense, I’ll write some text in reply.”
My question was quite clear Billy. It seems you do not want to answer it. Offsite collaberation amongst editors and even more so banned editors is a violation of wikipedia rules. Its a rule you and your goof troop have in fact been found to have broken in the past and been admonished for it.
Your quick defense of the remaining members of your goof troop suggests you are are still very much in contact with them and collaborating with them offsite. Once again putting you and the rest of your goof troop in violation of the same rule that you have a history of violating.
So the question is quite simple. Are you currently collaborating with the remaining members of your goof troop offsite?
> Its a rule you… have in fact been found to have broken in the past and been admonished for
No it isn’t. Diff, please, if you think otherwise.
> Then why are you banned?
I’m not. Err, you did follow the “my last 1000 edits” link, above, didn’t you? and you are capable of reading a timestamp, I hope.
WMC
“Now I haven’t got a clue what you’re talking about. For ease of reference, yes I defend my actions as honest, and truthful, and scientifically sound. If you disagree, post actual diffs or quotes from me, not vagueness.”
Then why are you banned?
The guy who takes science by the throat is part of a gang with Stefan Schultz and Brigade Harvester Boris who continued his job while he was blocked.
Science at the wikipedia has at least three weasels at its throat.
DirkH: that’s Short Brigade Harvester Boris to you. Can you guys not get anything right?
Send me more skeptics, these ones are broken 🙂
So you’ve been a good boy for the last thousand edits. Big deal. Fortunately you cannot control the discussion here.
Why don’t you allow postings from both sides and let people decide for themselves like Anthony does. If you are correct, this will come through. If you are wrong, that will come through as well. Your past actions tell me you haven’t the courage to do this. You guys have controlled the discussion FAR too long. Climate science has been railroaded down the wrong track. You have wasted everybody’s time and money.
Connolley is being misleading, pretending he is the only one to edit wikipedia.
Connolley says:
“Err, you did follow the ‘my last 1000 edits’ link, above, didn’t you?”
Lots of those “edits” are blatant censorship of opposing views. Proving once again that there is a glaring difference between an ethical site like WUWT, which does not censor comments with a different point of view, and a heavily censoring propaganda blog like the mendacious Wikipedia.