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.
X!’s Edit Counter gives these numbers:
Username: William M. Connolley
User groups: autoreviewer, reviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Feb 07, 2003 11:46:59
Unique pages edited: 7,411
Average edits per page: 7.71
Live edits: 55,351
Deleted edits: 1,766
Total edits (including deleted): 57,117
http://toolserver.org/~tparis/pcount/index.php?name=William+M.+Connolley&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia
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!
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.
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.
Another name for my hit list.
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”.
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.”
“Wikipedia climate fiddler William Connolley is in the news again”
Connolley fiddles while Wikipedia burns.
Reblogged this on Climate Ponderings.
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.
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.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ferrigno_Glacier
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/07/120725132208.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eltanin_Bay
Scottish Sceptic:
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!
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.
If Wikipedia has been damaged by Connellectomy, then so too has the British Antarctic Survey, which only recently “survived” some proposed changes:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/9651034/British-Antarctic-Survey-saved-after-outcry.html
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.
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
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.
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:
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
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.
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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.
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