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 says: @ur momisugly 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)
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.
kai:
At February 1, 2013 at 2:36 am you say to me
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
Gail Combs:
re your post at February 1, 2013 at 3:12 am
Excellent! Well said! Thankyou.
Richard
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
“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.)
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.
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.
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.”
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
Ah! You have. Many thanks and I apologise for my impetuous behaviour. 🙂
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.
@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:
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.
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
Bob:
At February 1, 2013 at 8:46 am you say
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
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.
Stephen Rasey wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/#comment-1214067
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.
@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.
@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.
Stephen Rasey:
At February 1, 2013 at 1:45 pm you ask
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
@richard
You hold we can remove the right to free speech with a majority vote?
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 …
.
Stephen Rasey wrote in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/30/wikipedia-climate-fiddler-william-connolley-is-in-the-news-again/#comment-1214252
and then you answer your own question:
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:
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.
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.
Stephen Rasey:
At February 1, 2013 at 4:35 pm you attempt to distort what I have said in this thread by asking
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