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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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
Since I first saw and read how the source is edited (by anybody) I’ve always called it Wackipedia.
And I’ve always called them Global Warming Kooks from way back when…
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
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.
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.
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.
“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.
Some of the comments exhibit some misinformation. knr refers to Connolley and his sockpuppets.
The term sockpuppet has a specific meaning in Wikipedia. They are a major problem. However, while Connolley was once accused of having sockpuppets, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/William_M._Connolley/Archive he was cleared. While he is not faultless, sockpuppetry is not an issue with him.
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.
Reads like it’s a lousy translate program.
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
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
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.)
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.
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/
@temp 10:31 am and there can be no historic doubt that hitler owned and controlled the means of production.
Ludwid von Mises disagrees:
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.
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
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
Wikipedia asks for donations. There is a page with an email address: problemsdonating (at) wikimedia.org. I decided to explain my problem. Exerpt below:
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.)
@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.
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.
– – – – – – –
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
” 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.
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.
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
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.