The sad tales of the Wikipedia gang war regarding WUWT – ‘creepy and a little scary’

As we all know, Wikipedia has one major flaw in it’s design: it allows gang warfare.

We see this in many political entries, such as the Wikipedia entries for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, which are revised hourly, only to be be revised again by “gatekeepers”. See more here: The-ClintonObama-War-The-Battle-of-Wikipedia

This illustrates the most basic problem with the reliability of Wikipedia in any entry where human opinion is involved. There are roving gangs (and sometimes individuals who appear gang-like due to their output level, such as disgraced Wikipedia editor William Connolley, who will no doubt wail about this note, and then proceed to post the usual denigrating things on his “Stoat, taking science by the throat” blog) and individuals who act as gatekeepers of their own vision of “truth”, regardless of whether that truth is correct or not. Some of these people may simply be paid political operatives, others may be zealots who have a belief that they are part of a “righteous cause”, something we know from Climatetgate as “noble cause corruption“. Many of the people involved don’t even use their real names, so of course hide behind that anonymity. In my opinion, it’s truly an irresponsible and cowardly way to define “truth” with no responsibility for your actions attached.

Right now, there is a war going on over WUWT’s entry on Wikipedia, with a clear intent to apply a smear. I’ve been getting a fair amount of email about it. Here are some examples:

Just a heads-up that there’s a concerted effort in progress to label both you and WUWT as “a blog dedicated to climate change denial” (first line in lede, WUWT article) and “described by climatologist Michael E. Mann in The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars as having “overtaken Climate Audit as the leading climate change denial blog”. (last line in your Wikibio). A twofer! Sigh.

It’s a determined group, and things (as you may recall) get decided by head-counts there. “They” have more heads than we do….

From another concerned reader:

I just tried fixing it and got shut down.  Those people really care more about “gate-keeping” public information then just reporting the facts.  It’s creepy and a little scary.  Kind of like double-speak.  The game seems to be finding a “source” which sides with their own viewpoint, and then bestowing high “credibility” on those sources, while denigrating anything else.   I’m actually ambivalent on climate change and fall somewhere in the middle as to whether it’s a major problem.  So much is unknowable when it comes to the natural sciences.  But when I see the above described behavior it really, really makes me sick, regardless of which side is doing.  Anyways I just wanted to bring this to your attention in case you were not already aware of it.

And this one:

Anthony,
Don’t know if you’re aware that when searching for WUWT on Bing a profile pops up on the right margin, the first sentence of which is;

“Watts Up With That? is a blog dedicated to climate change denial created in 2006 by Anthony Watts”

I used their feedback form to object but it will no doubt be ignored. No need to respond to this.

Of course, I’m not allowed to make any changes myself, because the Wikipedia rules prevent such things due to potential “bias”. (added: In some cases, even the Wikipedia administration won’t even attempt to correct falsehoods, requiring a public appeal such as this Open Letter to Wikipedia h/t to Bob in comments). But, oddly, people who have a willful bias against me and WUWT are fair game for such changes. The citations list on the WUWT Wikipedia page reads like a “who’s-who” of haters.

For the record:

I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. However, what is in dispute (and being addressed by mainstream climate science) is climate sensitivity to CO2 as well as the hiatus in global warming, also known as “the pause”. Since I embrace the idea of warming and that CO2 is a factor, along with other drivers including natural variability, the label “denier” is being applied purely for the denigration value, and does not accurately reflect my position on climate.

That paragraph above should serve as it’s own entry in the Wikipedia citations for WUWT.

So, since this is a numbers game, and because anyone can edit Wikipedia articles, I ask WUWT readers to help out in this matter. Here’s some instructions on how to do so, including the official Wikipedia instructions. You can make edits after you create an account.

If you do participate, please stick to facts, not opinions. Thanks for your consideration.

Advertisements

448 thoughts on “The sad tales of the Wikipedia gang war regarding WUWT – ‘creepy and a little scary’

  1. I had the unfortunate duty of telling Ken Rice that he lived in a world without consensus enforcers.
    ==============

    • I gave up on them a long, long, long time ago. The amount of errors is, at times, catastrophic.

      • Me too. I tried to add a piece on the IRA?Sin Feinn page noting how they were mass murdering, child killer who cover up sex crimes, but was shut down very quickly…….

    • Wikipedia has been deemed unacceptable at reference source at most top level universities in North America for a decade or more. I must have been one of the first to do so when I was an Adjunct Professor [Faculty of Applied Sciences] 15 years ago and told my students their papers would fail if based on Wikipedia references. Things have only got worse since.

      • “Wikipedia has been deemed unacceptable at reference source at most top level universities in North America for a decade or more.”

        That should be true of Encyclopedia Britannica as well. I mean … come on! A university student who attempts to use Wikipedia or any traditional encyclopedia as a primary reference source deserves to be slapped. You may as well write a paper with a crayon.

        But I think it’s unfair to suggest Wikipedia is without value. I find it’s a great resource, provided one is willing to follow up by going to the cited references for further information, and provided one understands that the Wiki entry itself may be biased.

        This isn’t just a Wikipedia problem. Read any number of encyclopedia entries from fifty or so years ago and the current entries and you’ll find that they change as biases come and go with the changing times.

    • Its not just political.

      I am a bit of an aircraft nut, and was researching the horsepower of WWII aircraft. Horsepower is usually quotes as bhp by UK /US sources and kW by European sources often with both being quoted. One bhp is ~745kW so its easy to cross-check

      In one case I was astounded to see that the figures did not match. It was fairly obvious that two digits had got transposed somewhere in some reference, and the actual kW figure was a typo.

      So I corrected it and explained why.

      Within a day my correction was reversed by the original author!

      I assumed he had some reference in which the mistake appeared and considered it ‘authoritative’

      Its an interesting take on ‘appeals to authority’ and ‘chinese whispera’
      Another interst is nuclear power. I have a friend who was for a time an advisor to the CND on nuclear power. SA good guardian reading technically minded bloke who is not given to hysteria and mistakes, oddly enough.

      Several times O have challenged him on aspects of nuclear safety and been rebuffed with ‘there was a study done back the the 60/70s/80s showing that…’

      Googling that, reveals no such studies. What WAS happening then, was that articles – the New Scientist, the Guardian or by the BBC, featured the subject under discussion with such phrases as ‘scientists say that (the subject) COULD give rise to (unpleasant effect mentioned).

      Never that any real study had been carried out to ascertain if it had.

      It is all pure propaganda. I remember 20 years ago my (German living) sister claiming that ‘Germany had no nuclear power stations’ despite the fact that at that time it had more nuclear capacity than the UK.

      People dont deal in facts: They deal in impressions, and those on the lobbying and ’cause’ front are skilled at giving impressions.

      UK wind-power has killed more people than Fukushima. No one describes it as a ‘disaster’ though.

      Angel Merkel for example was a former agitprop executive in East Germany… In that game the truth is irrelevant: What counts is what people believe and who they trust to tell them.

      In fact the Left by and large is of the (faux) postmodern opinion that truth is in fact what people believe it is.

      The problem is that whilst the game of thrones is OK, there is at some level a game of life going on as well.

      Underlying all the posturing and claims there is a real world that doesn’t care what people believe, only what people do, and if they do stupid things, they will in the end suffer.

      Its lonely being an engineer, and machines may not make the best conversationalists, but at least they are not inherently clouded by belief.

  2. Perhaps I’m naïve, but it seems to me Wikipedia is libel for publishing known false information. I should think you could contact them and they would fix it. Just as Youtube removes improper postings. Once notified of a bad posting, Wikipedia owns it.

    • First, I assume you mean “liable”. “Libel” is an issue, but not what you meant.

      Second it is more complicated than many realize. At the risk of sounding pedantic, you cannot sue Wikipedia, there’s no such entity. You might mean Wikimedia, (note the “m”) which is a legal corporation. However, Wikimedia plays no direct part in creating, or changing content. Wikimedia pays for servers to host content, and pays developers and other staff to dream up and develop new projects. Wikipedia content (and you probably mean the English Wikipedia, one of many) is edited by individual editors, who remain responsible for their respective content.

      There are some small exceptions. Wikimedia legal staff will intervene if there are legal issues, such as libel, and other issues that are not promptly resolved by ordinary Wikipedia editors.

      Of course, you can sue Wikimedia, in the same sense you can sue anyone, if you can talk a lawyer into filing the suit, but you are unlikely to prevail. However, returning to your opening point, you are unlikely to prevail if you try to sue Wikimedia for “publishing known false information”, because Wikimedia publishes nothing. If you find knowingly false information, you’ll have to track down the specific editor who placed it. Wikimedia will help you identify their real name if you have a legitimate issue.

      • The shorter version of what Phil just ably laid out is that there is not necessarily an effective legal remedy for every wrong. My kids were always crushed when that was my response to their “Let’s sue” but adulthood seems to be going better for them that their “it’s not fair” friends.

        Anthony does have a remedy though as he is asserting by using the platform of this widely circulated blog to create search results that will prevent Wikipedia from having the last or exclusive say on this. This blog simply has more subscribers and daily hits than any particular section of wikipedia for the most part.

        Congrats on utilizing both a more effective and less costly remedy for an attempt to defame as well as a recognition of how search engines actually work. Now what will come up as WUWT and wikipedia are combined?

        Bingo.

      • The other Phil,

        Are you saying the Wikipedia site can have anything on it, with no legal recourse? Sounds like it.

        Suppose someone posts: “Mr. X is a known child molester”? Are you saying that Mr. X can’t sue?

        If that’s an exception, then where do you draw the line?

      • It says right at the top of the WUWT wiki page,

        Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
        See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can submit an edit request, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

        Disabled by who? The answer to that question is the guy who is financially liable for Wikipedia content.
        No matter what is said on the page by whoever, the guy who blocked amendments to the record gives his explicit consent to the libel.

      • dbstealy, wow, how could you possibly get that from what I worte? On the chance that my words were unclear, absolutely not. If someone writes ” “Mr. X is a known child molester”, the first thing that will happen is that it is likely to removed in seconds. Literally seconds. In rare cases, it may take minutes. But let’s assume it lasts long enough for someone to see it. This is one of those rare case where Wikimedia satff will get involved, first, removing the entry, then helping Mr. X isf there is a desire to press charges. I wasn;t trying to suggest that one couldn’t sue, but the recourse is not against the deep pockets of Wikimedia, it is against the editor who added the statement.

        As an amusing aside, I just did a search for the term “child molester”, and I briefly panicked when I saw a link to an article with the phrase “Kevin Bacon as a convicted child molester”. I misread “as” to be “is”, but after I read it, I realized it was fine.

      • Given that the founder was a former Pornographer, no surprises that pinning them down might prove difficult :)

    • Interesting point wrt libel. Since they have final say about editing, the “safe harbor” provisions don’t apply. I’d also go long with Richard’s suggestion as a libel suit is much more likely to prevail in the UK than the US.

      OTOH, being criticized by Mikey Mann is a badge of honor in my book.

      • Oh, crap! I reread what I wrote, and I see you are correct about libel. Liable for libel is more better.

      • Ok, you meant “libel” My point still holds. A good lawyer (IANAL) will tell you that Wikimedia’s defense isn’t ironclad, if they are cavalier about what is included in the content, someone is likely to prevail in a lawsuit. But editors, admins, and the legal staff are very aggressive in removing libel or even potential libel. Do you have any counter-examples?

  3. This happens all the time. But although you can’t know the person’s name you can retrace their URL.

    For example the NYPD HQ was used to edit information against the police by downplaying their role in Michael Brown’s death

    • I’ve had the same problem with some of my own work. Since it is academic, there was no problem supplying abundant references. It made no difference. The article author/gatekeeper (captaincrunch21?) refused to read any of the source material cited in his/her own article or the additional bibliography provided by me. Years later, the wikipedia articles are still hopelessly wrong.

  4. I spent some time trying to fix the junk history that can be found regarding the Little Ice Age, which ascribed the ceasing of human activities caused by the Black Plague and the resulting increased forest lowered CO2 and brought on the cold. There simply were not that many humans to do this, let alone impossible for CO2 to drive the climate like that.

    When I added a couple of moderate sentences, my changes were quickly removed and I was threatened by William Connolley several times. He is a piece of work, a troll sitting on Wikipedia back then, canceling all rational input. It took a long time for hime to be disgraced for his activities and I am sure others have taken his place.

  5. To be fair, this is a site where “deniers” like myself also come to get a fair hearing and meet like minded thinkers. That you, Anthony, are personally a “Luke warmer” who believes there is something called a ‘greenhouse effect’ when many on here don’t, is by the by.
    I personally embrace the term “denier”, regardless of attempted Nazi connotations. It’s a badge of honour. Yes, I deny there is a Greenhouse Effect. Yes, I deny rising CO2 has any measurable effect on temperature of this planet or any other. Now prove me wrong!

    • Physics proved you wrong decades ago. Do you want to take a run at Evolution as well?

      • HS physics will tell us what will happen to a thermometer in the mouth of a bronze statue of you stuck knee deep in a tub of boiling water but not if it’s similarly in the mouth of the real you. You want me to prove that to you?

      • Wow warrenlb, even the warmists have had real trouble showing the ‘real signal’ of C02’s effect on the temps. I am quite sure that the only sources you can find are weak correlations over short time periods. They may cite models and that is just a massive ensemble of guesses. Perhaps reasonable but not any kind of proof.

      • warrenlb my close (“minded?”) personal friend,

        All on here understand that you believe this. We also know that you cannot document any such proof. What kind of an engineer must you have been…

      • Physics proved you wrong decades ago.

        And physics also proves that a Greenhouse Effect is almost identical to a Thermos Bottle Effect.

        Given said, does anyone want to claim that the “warming”, …. partial or otherwise, …. of the earth’s atmosphere is a direct result of a Thermos Bottle Effect?

        If not, ….. why not, ……. both terms infer a “heat trapping effect”?

        If you are offered a “cup of coffee” out of a Thermos Bottle ……. you “just assume” it is going to be a “HOT” cup of coffee, ……….. right?

      • A cloudy winter night staying generally warmer than a clear winter night.

        Now that would be for sure …. a Thermos Bottle Effect (TBE), ……. right.

      • You are dead wrong, warrenlb, and you are way out of line with that Evolution remark. That wickedwenchfan, whoever it may be, is right that rising SO2 has no measurable effect on temperature. Where have you been hiding for the last 18 years when carbon dioxide kept rising but was unable to to cause any temperature rise whatsoever? The Arrhenius greenhouse theory kept predicting warming at the same time and likewise got nothing. A scientific theory that makes verifiably wrong predictions is invalid and has to be disposed of in the waste basket of history. With the Arrhenius theory gone all the predictions of greenhouse warming it it has made become false science and must be discarded as well. Since the fairy tale of AGW was built up upon these wrong predictions it follows that there is no such thing as AGW. The only greenhouse theory that works now is the Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT. Its predictions are straightforward: addition of carbon dioxide to the atmosphere does not warm the atmosphere. To learn how this works read my comment to Pamela Gray below. You need to learn some real climate science for which you can’t find a better source than my book “What Warming?” Get it from Amazon and educate yourself.

    • As a sceptic of catastrophic human caused green warming I find you to be completely uneducated. No one with a western grade 6 education should Deny basic science I.E. the green house effect is known and quantifiable. Most of the people on this blog are arguing the source,inputs and ultimate outcomes If any.

      • Bench test seldom translates directly to full scale operations. The greenhouse effect of CO2 dispersed in the atmosphere is far less quantifiable than a controlled laboratory experiment and is yet to be proven.

      • @Chris Hagan
        Unfortunately, there are all too many that fit your description, including the two posts directly below yours. Indeed, it is about ultimate outcomes, will such outcomes ultimately be catastrophic, can Man adapt, should he attempt to mitigate, what tools are available for mitigation, and what are the effects of using those tools —-both on the outcomes and on the economy. Rejecting 6th Grade Science is not the way to convince anyone of anything.

      • No one with a western grade 6 education should Deny basic science I.E. the green house effect is known and quantifiable.

        @Chris Hagan
        You could have just as easily stated … “a western grade 1 education” …. because most every US Public School System is now brainwashing their student body into believing the “junk science” of CO2 causing global warming climate change (CAGW).

        Any “warming” effect of near-surface temperatures attributable to “radiative gases” is not cumulative from one (1) month to the next, …. let alone one (1) year to the next, ….. therefore it matters not a twit what atmospheric CO2 ppm quantities were in respect to what the “fuzzy math” calculated Average Yearly Temperatures were last year, 50 years ago or 130 years ago.

        In actuality, it is not so much that the earth’s climate is “getting warmer” or “getting hotter” that is causing the calculated Average Yearly Temperatures to increase during the past 200 years …… as it is the fact that the earth’s surface has not been “cooling off” or “cooling down” as much during the yearly seasonal “cool” or ”cold” periods.

        If CO2 is the actual culprit that is causing the increase in Average Yearly Temperatures …. then Summertime temperatures would be increasing at the same rate as the Wintertime temperatures, ……. but they are not.

    • And do not forget the discrepancy between anthropogenic CO2 production and global CO2 levels rise. Some people also doubt that the main cause of the increment of atmospheric CO2 levels is not because we burn fossil fuels.

    • To be fair, this is a site where “deniers” like myself also come to get a fair hearing and meet like minded thinkers. That you, Anthony, are personally a “Luke warmer” who believes there is something called a ‘greenhouse effect’ when many on here don’t, is by the by.

      No, you are wrong, it is not “by the by”. The wikipedia is saying that WUWT “is a blog dedicated to climate change denial”. The fact that “deniers” like you get a hearing and are laughted at from time to time doesn’t make it “a blog dedicated to climate change denial”. If anything, it is a blog dedicated to open discussion about climate change.

      And about there being “many” who are deniers and just Anthony as a Luke Warmer… well, that is pretty laughable. Just have a look at the rest of the responses that your comment has received. I would rather say that the number of regular commenters here denying the Greenhouse Effect could perhaps, being generous, be considered to barely reach 1%.

  6. The problem with the whole Wikipedia entry is that it is written from the perspective of the MSM, the political left and the alarmist blogs and papers. There are loads of entries from the Guardian and references to “denial”, “denialism” and “denialist” (what is the difference between a “denier” and a “denialist” I wonder?). The only way to make this entry even slightly truthful would be to delete it all and start from scratch.

    I think it is quite fair that the entry should include a reference to the fact that much of the MSM sees you as a “denier”, but the way it is presented is that it is a “fact” that you are a denier. Clearly this is opinion and not fact and should be stated as such.

    Rather than changing the text I think it should be edited to flag up those parts of the entry which are clearly opinion and politics not fact.

    • As I’ve note here before, there is no entry or mention of the words denialism or denialist in either of my two older local dictionaries, each dating from the early 1990s. At the very least, these terms are neologisms.

      There however a valid word which may be useful – deniable, as an adjective, and the related noun deniability, as in plausible deniability, where some may claim to be “out of the loop.”

      If something is deniable, then it should be disputed.

      Wikipedia is valuable but flawed. I think contentious issues should be flagged at a system level when many edits are being made, and then the opposing viewpoints might all be included in some fashion so the Wiki user may read it all. ‘Else it’s just running censorship.

      • Good idea. Rather than claiming to be unbiassed (there is no such thing), they should have a pro section and a con section. Let the reader deside what they want to believe.

      • For some reason, they’ve deleted my corrected version of this post, which was here for awhile, and began

        “As I’ve noted here before…”

        2nd paragraph should begin:

        “There however is a valid word which may be useful…”

  7. “I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe. …” ~ A. W.

    I can attest that after reading this blog for some time, that the position of Mr. Watts and that of the current “consensus” on climate is the same. Both he and the warmists do believe in CO2 warming the planet but they disagree on the matter of “how much?”. They agree that the planet has warmed over the last 100 years but may disagree on “how much?” and, also, if the surface record is reliable.

    From my viewpoint, it is hard to see why those people have attacked Mr. Watts and WUWT on wikipedia since both groups are on the same side in most respects. The main difference is a matter of degree.

    I personally am not certain that we can really say what the average global temperature is now and certainly don’t think we know what it was in the past to the degree of certainty needed to claim warming. I also don’t think the “average temperature” of the atmosphere, if we could calculate it, is the best metric of the energy stored in the earth system. I also don’t think that CO2 plays any part at all in warming the planet on a net basis. I also think that the net effect of CO2 is so darn small it makes no difference if it cools or warms on net.

    Since I am not “on the side” of either party in the dispute, I feel I can say without any bias that this smear job is totally unwarranted. (but not unexpected)

    ~ Mark

    • To suggest that the Blog denies Climate Change is patent falsehood, as attested by the many excellent articles attempting to characterise accurately the causes & extent of climate change.

      The repeated attempts to justify such pejorative use of language on a basis that others have published in the same manner is more worthy of trashy red topped tabloids than of any aspiring tome of knowledge.

      Use of the term denial in this context is clearly unbefitting. Attempts to dignify such abuse by academicians using the term else is a specialised area for discussion elsewhere and do not justify such clearly derogatory use here.

      The standing of the whole WikiPedia project is sadly diminished much more by this than the reputation of one Blog, whose enduring popularity by the way speaks for itself.

      • Psychologically, the mindset of the Wiki gatekeepers seems far closer to that of prosecutors in a heresy trial, than to anything remotely recognizable as science.

    • Catastrophic warming is denied; what’s affirmed is that present mistaken policy is already catastrophic and worsening.
      ==================

    • You’re not allowed a difference from the received wisdom, even by as much as one degree.
      Look what happened to Lomborg and he’s more of a warmist than Anthony.
      “He who is not with us 100%, no ifs, no buts, no arguments, is against us 100% and is and evil denier”.
      All black and white in the world of climate “science”.

    • markstoval,

      You say you don’t understand why Anthony Watts is being attacked. You say:

      Both he and the warmists do believe in CO2 warming the planet but they disagree on the matter of “how much?”. They agree that the planet has warmed over the last 100 years but may disagree on “how much?” and, also, if the surface record is reliable.

      Anthony agrees with the generally accepted science. That is not the source of the Wikipedia propagandists’ hatred of Anthony and his site. What they hate is the fact that Anthony allows all points of view, and that many well known scientists post articles and comment here. This site also has a much higher number of readers educated in the hard sciences. If the public wants to understand the ‘climate’ debate, this is their best source. They can read both sides, and make up their own minds. And of course, WUWT is very widely read, and influential.

      When a site allows all sides to contribute, the truth (as far as we know scientific truth) emerges. And the fact is that the original premise: that human CO2 emissions will cause runaway global warming and climate catastrophe, has been falsified by events. That derails the carbon tax politics that is at the root of the ‘climate change’ narrative.

      Not only is there no runaway global warming, but there has been no global warming at all for a very long time. Believers in the original conjecture could hardly have been more wrong. They hate that, and they direct their hatred onto those who turned out to be correct: CO2 is a very minor, 3rd-order forcing that simply does not matter. Its effect is too small to measure.

      What they want is to turn WUWT into another Wikipedia, so they can censor out all comments by skeptics of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative. Because they cannot stand the thought that the public has access to any point of view but their own.

      • dbstealey,

        I understand your comment, and agree that they can’t stand the wholesale disputing of the ‘dangerous man-made global warming’ narrative.

        But I would point out that we don’t tolerate all points of view concerning CO2 and global warming here. As a moderator you know the site policy against getting too close to the position of zero climate sensitivity to CO2 or in posting links to certain groups that dispute warming by back radiation. (notice I tip-toed around using the s-word there) I do not agree 100% with any group, but I do see value in listening to all sides.

        I do wish that we could pleasantly discuss these matters here, but alas, that is against site policy. I find the J. T. Kiehl and Kevin E. Trenberth, 1997 energy budget to be a cartoon and not science, yet my main complaint is not a topic welcome here. Since I freely admit that I might be wrong, it would be nice to see debate on that topic here at times.

        In an odd way, Mr. Watts and WUWT are being wrongly accused of holding my position while the reality is that Mr. Watts disputes the size of the CO2 contribution of warming. (as well as feedbacks of course)

      • Philip Finck

        You say

        Also, science only has one side

        NO! You are absolutely wrong.

        Science has no ‘sides’: it has an infinite number of possibilities and assesses available evidence to determine which possibility is least wrong.

        Science could not progress if there were not an infinite number of possibilities; your “one side” would exclude a theory (e.g. phlogiston) being displaced by another possibility (e.g. oxidation).

        You are guilty of the warmunist error of talking about THE science: acceptance of ‘the science’ is a denial of science.

        Richard

      • Philip Finck,

        Richard Courtney is right, science doesn’t have sides. But if science had only one side, you would surely be on the wrong side. You also say that this site doesn’t publish current research. I am confident in saying that you don’t know what you’re talking about.

        markstoval,

        I’ve often written that I personally think that CO2 has a negligible effect, but that others such as Dr. Miskolczi state that it has no warming effect at all.

        Saying you think CO2 has no warming effect is a legitimate position. The site policy states that certain subjects are not allowed (chemtrails, etc.). But if you want to argue that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, have at it.

      • dbstealey,

        ” But if you want to argue that CO2 doesn’t cause global warming, have at it.”

        That is good to hear. I will do so in the future on a thread where it is on topic. I will avoid linking to the forbidden site that Mr. Watts as asked us never to link to, but there are many others that also good links. Especially a certain mathematician. (no, not Dr. Mann!)

        Nice to have a talk with you today.

      • That is not the source of the Wikipedia propagandists’ hatred of Anthony and his site. What they hate is the fact that Anthony allows all points of view, and that many well known scientists post articles and comment here.

        Bingo!
        Actual and honest science is not advanced by attempting to censor/silence those who present and can backup “inconvenient views”.
        Such views can be voiced and read here. Often the comments debunk, fine tune and/or sharpen the views expressed.
        Those who stand to lose something (money, power, prestige etc.) are those who hate any who hold or allow those “inconvenient views” to be heard.

      • Mr. Finck:
        I would say that if you paid attention that you would find that this site actually has better research than the pal reviewed hoar grant papers published by the mainstream.

      • WUWT readers and contributors are a bit older, therefore more experienced, better informed and therefore conduct better analyses than the average believer in CAGW.

        Can anyone cite a reference? Skepticism of CAGW should be a prerequisite for anyone considered for a scientific editorial post. Other wise everything will dissolve into churches of thought instead of schools of thought.

        Wikipedia is pretty good for straight technical stuff like chemistry. Politics and climate, not so much. The New Scientist also lost its citability some years ago. Ah, how great it used to be before The Warming.

      • P. Finck:
        “Could you please provide us with the impact ratio for citation counts on this blog?”

        I am sure that will not agree, but I consider these just as relevant to your rigged “pitch” and there are of course many others just as educational. But then one has to of course be capable of having an open mind.
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/24/are-climate-modelers-scientists/
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/11/the-pnas-old-boys-club-nas-members-can-choose-who-will-review-their-paper/
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/07/10/peer-review-ring-busted/
        https://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/17/peer-review-pal-review-and-broccoli/

      • I’ve seen several posters make the claim that thermodynamics proves that CO2 can’t warm the earth.
        I’ve even argued with several of them.
        Their posts aren’t removed and the posters themselves haven’t been banned.

    • ” Both he and the warmists do believe in CO2 warming the planet but they disagree on the matter of “how much?”.”

      Not to speak for our host, but many of us also disagree on the matter of “what else?”. Land use changes — in particular over-grazing pastureland and clear-cutting forest — are known to affect albedo, dust-formation, water-retention, and other elements of the local weather that in turn affect the global climate. The soot that accompanies some, but not all, fossil fuel consumption has an effect, and that effect is poorly differentiated from the effect of CO2. And of course some of us worry about solar and asteroid impacts on the climate. (Yes the latter use of “impact” is a deliberate pun.)

      Those of us who assume there may be other causes of climate change besides CO2 concentrations then want our governments’ spending to be generalized enough to deal with a range of threats, rather than focusing on one, potentially wrong or mis-prioritized, threat.

      • pouncer,

        I certainly agree that mankind’s many activities, especially desertification, has effected the climate, as well as the sun and even possibly impacts by celestial bodies. Good points you made. All this single minded focus on just anthropogenic CO2 emissions is wildly misguided, as you point out.

      • Pouncer while I agree with the part about man having some affect on the environment, I disagree strongly that our government needs to spend even one penny trying to stop climate change. There is absolutely NO evidence that the climate is changing catastrophically or that man has done anything significant at this point with respect to causing climate change… so NO… generalized government spending to stop climate change is 100% wasted money.

  8. they will lock the whole article down now, since they can no longer successfully gatekeep it

  9. My grandson is in high school and many of his teachers won’t let the students use Wikipedia as a reference because they don’t consider it reliable information.

    • Of course you shouldn’t use Wikipedia as a reference, in high school, college, middle school or elsewhere. Is there anyone who disputes this? Even Wikipedia disallows Wikipedia as a reference. However, that doesn’t mean it isn’t a useful place to start researching, just make sure to go to the sources.

      • It’s a good place to get the officially maintained position about anything. What they call their NPOV, which is the regime opinion about anything.

      • As a university professor, I only use Wikipedia as a source to initially compile some references. If the subject matter is of a controversial nature and Wikipedia’s list of references is biased, it doesn’t take long to find references on the other side of the issue in published sources as even some of the biased published articles will reference opposing sources.

      • That’s funny! A knowledge base that doesn’t let us use its own knowledge base as a source of knowledge.

        Sorry about the Wiki entries, Anthony. The corruption of search engines will surely follow. I believe that persistent objections – everyone take a minute per day – will overcome this. It eventually got Connelley dumped out of his chair.

  10. It seems that wiki has an unfortunate tendency to allow distortions to accumulate and get built upon quite quickly so they become lies. This story reminds me of recently when I was offered from a CiF commenter the following quote from the wiki page of Roger Pielke Sr as evidence that Pielke Jr* was a climate change denier:

    In 2010 Pielke revisited a question provided by Andrew Revkin[5] “Is most of the observed warming over the last 50 years likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations”, Pielke stated that the answer “remains No”, …

    http://www.theguardian.com/science/political-science/2015/apr/23/playing-the-ball-not-the-man#comment-51001269

    It turns out this is of course a crude fabrication, there literally is no example of Pielke Sr saying “remains no” to Revkins question. But it took a while to drill down to the source of the claim and I found the initial creator of this meme was KimDabelsteinPetersen here

    http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roger_A._Pielke&type=revision&diff=360548280&oldid=360533958

    I believe KimDabelsteinPetersen at one time was almost as diligent at maintaining the climate narrative as William Connolley was, I’m not sure if he/she’s still active.

    Although KDP initially just creates a dogmatic assertion that Pielke said ‘remains NO’ without quotes, wrongly implying it originated on his blog with a link, It seems somewhere along the line those two words eventually picked up quotes and became perfectly adequate ‘factual’ ammunition for the CiF climate concerned hard of thinking.

    I wonder how, or if, wiki checks for possible accumulations like this? If people of the same ideological bent get to edit these pages it seems inevitable, even assuming the best will in the world, that their biases will obviously just lead to the site being full of plain lies like this.

    * Yes, he was that dumb. He didn’t know which was which :)

    • That is known as Wikipedia fact laundering. The lie gets put in wiki then it I’d picked up by some mainstream media then that mainstream media source is now used as the credible source.

    • Update: Apologies to KimDabelsteinPetersen. After I edited the page and corrected the mistaken URL which, I then removed the reference to the “remains No” quote thinking it was wrongly credited to be in that URL, however someone subsequently edited it, putting back the quote, pointing out that quote *does* appear in a later URL I had overlooked. It seem Wiki can work fine sometimes

  11. The problem with this devious information manipulation is that student’s perceptions are shaped early on and it takes years to clear their cloudy minds.

    It beckons to the images of North Korean youth who believe the absurd state sponsored lies about their leader. It is so difficult to beak the bonds of manipulated ignorance…

  12. Anfhony I went on Wikipedia website to edit WUWT and this message displayed:
    Note!
    This page is under a 1 revert rule restriction due to the climate change topic community probation. Do not make any edit to the article that reverses the edit of another user in whole or in part more than once in any 24 hour period. Avoid edit warring and seek consensus

    for any contentious edits at Talk:Watts Up With That?. Editors who fail to adhere to these standards may be blocked from editing for a short period.

    Any ideas?

    • “And seek consensus”, oh that’s rich. Good luck with that. And when did truth get defined by consensus?

      The thing that people don’t like about Truth is it doesn’t care about consensus. In fact, Truth doesn’t care who likes it. If Truth were on Facebook, it wouldn’t have many friends, nor followers on Twitter. But it is, as they say, out there, for those who seek it.

      • I’ve seen several references to “truth”.

        This is an unofficial essay, but it may be helpful.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Truth

        Short version – the goal of Wikipedia is verifiability. (One hopes that verifiability and truth are closely related, but unfortunately, there may be exceptions. “Truth” is an unattainable goal for a crowd-sourced wiki, but verifiability, while challenging, is at least in principle, attainable.

      • “Consensus is the business of politics. Science, on the contrary, requires only one investigator who happens to be right, which means that he or she has results that are verifiable by reference to the real world.

        In science consensus is irrelevant. What is relevant is reproducible results. The greatest scientists in history are great precisely because they broke with the consensus. There is no such thing as consensus science. If it’s consensus, it isn’t science. If it’s science, it isn’t consensus. Period.”

        -Michael Crichton, Aliens Cause Global Warming: A Caltech Lecture ”

        Wikipedia can be used as a fair proxy for what passes as the politically dominant themes in society. It’s kind of depressing.

    • What do you mean by “any ideas”? A one revert rule does not prohibit you from editing. The usual rule in most places is that three reverts in 24 hours is deemed edit warring (although it can be fewer). It is unlikely you need to make more than one edit in any 24 hour period. If you do, let me know, I may be able to help.

      • Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
        See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can submit an edit request, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.
        Watts Up With That?
        Watts Up logo.jpg
        Web address http://wattsupwiththat.com
        Slogan Commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news by Anthony Watts
        Type of site
        Blog
        Created by Anthony Watts
        Launched November 17, 2006
        Alexa rank
        22,823 (on 2015-05-25)
        Unbalanced scales.svg
        The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2015)

        Looks like they are ganging up on us

  13. Honestly, I stopped reading/using Wikipedia for anything about 10 years ago. It is absolutely riddled with rubbish, lies and propaganda. Look up Fascism, which was a grass roots, left wing, socialist movement that got ugly. Yet Wikipedia label Fascism as an historically right wing movement…

    • Well it is the right wing of the socialist spectrum. Also they do have Mussolini’s original party program – which reads a lot like the communist manifesto. Mussolini BTW learned his trade in the socialist party, which the wikipedia admitted when I last looked at it.

      • Not sure where you get your right/left wing info. My understanding is left wing equals big government and right wing equals small government. There is a continuum moving from the extreme left which is a totalitarian dictatorship or monarchy to the extreme right which is lack of government, or anarchy. The larger and more powerful govt. is left, smaller and distributed and more free is right.
        I’ve also been told that this is how the US looks at the right left paradigm, and in other parts of the world they use different definitions.

      • Fascism is ‘socialism for one ethnic/tribal group’ while denying even simple civil rights for other tribes/religions.

        This makes it both far right wing and far left wing at the same time and it is a very noxious belief system and a number of countries (ahem) practice this form or fascism.

    • Mark Cooper

      This thread is about how wicki misrepresents about climate change and WUWT in particular.

      Many other things also get misrepresented on wicki especially – as the above article says by way of illustration – US politics. But this thread is not about them.

      You provide a red herring by posting nonsense about fascism.
      Fascism is the extreme right wing. That is reality, so live with it.
      And please don’t try waving any other red herrings

      Richard

      • Well, maybe we’ve got to redefine “wing”. Problem is that “wing” relates to bird which only has two wings. To me, fascism is obviously left wing. Think dragonfly, perhaps.

      • Socialist have been trying desperately to distance themselves from the horrors of Nazi Germany for over half a century but you always fail. It’s sort of comical the way you start acting like a CAGW activist whenever the evils of Socialism come up.

      • richardscourtney,
        How many beers have you had? No idea why you focused on the reference to Fascism- I used that as an example only – That entry was the target of a ‘left wing” / “right wing” “gang-war” a few years ago. It is a waste of everyone’s time and resources to try and fix corrupted entries in Wikipedia, there is always one more nutter out there willing to spend 1/2 their life re-editing your re-edits.

      • Mark Cooper

        I have had no beers becxause I am medically allergic to beer (it’s the hops).

        You raised a disruptive ‘red herring’. I objected to it.

        There are many examples of wicki being mob ruled on controversial subjects. An assertion that ‘black is white/ or that ‘the political ultra-right is left-wing’ are NOT examples of it.

        Anybody who follows WUWT knows that at every opportunity the nonsense of “fascism is left wing” is promoted on WUWT by the far-right. Subsequent comments to yours show that your daft assertion was – as always happens – grasped by others who also want to promote your ludicrous assertion.

        I again ask that you don’t promote red herrings. And I add that it would be good if you were to let go of the stinking fish you have waived.

        Richard

      • National socialism is an extreme right wing position?
        Fascism is the govt control of private business, that’s socialism, and that is of the left.
        You can whine all you want, but reality lives on.

    • One of Webster’s definitions of ‘liberal’ is broad minded. Facism is not broad minded in the least so your assertion of where it came from is completely wrong and easily proven false.

    • MarkW

      I again ask you to stop waving your red herring.

      All governments of all kinds control businesses to some degree; e.g. by insisting on provision of independently audited annual accounts.

      The OED provides this definition of Facism

      An authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

      This thread is about activists corrupting wicki by replacing information with falsehoods.

      You are trying to corrupt WUWT by replacing information with falsehoods.
      Stop. Just stop.

      Richard

    • Where is YOUR paper, Billy?

      By the way you are still able to comment here,despite that you offer so little credibility to your ravings.

    • Willie the Weasel runs through the pixels
      Trimming the truth with his red pencil fix-all.
      Pity his fix
      When Nature sticks
      And trims this eraserhead who thinks he’s the schitzel.
      =================

    • @William Connolley

      Not one of the blokes on this forum rejecting AGW has the temerity to publish their ‘findings’ in a peer-reviewed Science Journal or anywhere their work might be held up to the scrutiny of Scientists. You’d think they’d feel a sense of guilt for not attempting to do so, but they prefer to cite ‘global conspiracy, fraud, or incompetence’ among Climate Scientists without attempting to put forth their own coherent analysis of the Climate’s behavior.

      An outside observer might conclude ‘they protest FAR too much.’

    • Bill Con,
      Give up bee keeping.
      Your quote on your site for May 25th 2015,
      “Fortunately today’s bees, though provoked, were kind.”
      What do you expect,bees like it HOT HOT HOT,not a 12C temperature,keep pedaling your bike and your hysteria about ‘Global Warming’.
      Maybe you should wrap your body around the Hive to give them the warmth that ‘Global Warming’ is denying them.

  14. Yes. I have known for a very long time that information on wiki was unreliable. So I make sure everyone knows that it unreliable. I read stuff and sometimes link to it if the particular subject is accurate at that time.

    I have tried to fix wiki articles but the storm of resistance make it unworthy of my time. So I enjoy watching wiki become as the internet as a whole has become, a pool of aggressive ignorance. I put my efforts in other places.

    wikipedia is mindbogglingly hell bent on conformity.
    Who writes on wiki? Nope not everyone as hoped for.

    1) Who knows how to use the coding feature in electronic media? (web page programmers)
    2) Who knows to to run an IRC/ chat to like minded people? (programmers)
    3) Who spend their days sitting at a web terminal? (programmers)
    4) Who have the time to accumulate “credentials” enough to bully brilliant nubees? (programmers)

    I contend that wiki is maintained by a narrow minded assembly of people, mostly overweight, gamer male programmers who know a little bit about a lot of subjects and consequently think that they are polyhistors. They want all wiki pages to look the same, regardless of the subject, They all have the same brand of politics also as a consequence and do not mind asserting those politics regardless of the harm to the article.

    I have run experiments on wiki. It is possible to alter entire sections of wiki without being noticed. I suspect that the entire wiki database is at risk of complete corruption by a gentle fog of continuous, subtle, insertion of erroneous information and faux maintenance.

    Because programmer type people are responsible for creating most of the content o wiki, they are missing out on the majority of brilliant expert thinkers who are not interested in asserting “consensus.” Consensus is for idiots. A majority vote by ignoramuses often constitutes a wiki fact. Voting.. seriously… voting…

    So rather than use wiki, I use search engines to find sites that are operated by individuals and I use traditional academic resources.

    Sometime wiki has a useful link, but most often wiki articles are blatant political propaganda. You can tell on the talk pages,… well until the editors started erasing talk subjects as well.

    I submit that wki is dying a death of 1 billion cuts. it is so unreliable that no serious scholar would refer to it alone.

    Things that you will never get reliable facts about on wiki (correlates to programmer/gamer/male/atheist/homosexual/socialist/greener…you get the drift)

    -Nietzsche (they just love this guy)
    -Anthony Watts (they just hate this guy)
    -Jesus Christ (they just hate this guy)
    -Alan Turing (they just love this guy)
    -Voltaire (they just love this guy)
    -Paschal (they just hate this guy)
    -Green energy
    -The United Nations

    My advice, write your own web pages on a subject, and do a good job of it. It will be found and respected and read. Don’t waste your time with wiki.

    Anthony, This site (WUWT) is the best answer to the BS wiki community. Your site is bigger than wiki when it come to reliable information.

    • Concerning Westhaver’s indictment of wikipedia:

      My father was a pioneer in the computer industry. His first system had 2,000 BITS of memory. There were two shifts of mechanics who repaired/replaced the mechanical relays performing operations. Yes, he was right at the source of “bugs.”

      He said that every result was analyzed for “reasonableness.” As mechanical faults could cause errors in results, no result was trusted.

      I see wikipedia that way. It has vast amounts of valuable information. But one must contemplate everything it says, to decide whether what is says is reasonable.

  15. Anyone that takes the ‘middle ground’ on the CAGW controversy (I wanted to use debate, but that is not evidenced by reality, on purpose) should take a step back (mentally) and ask themselves – why do I even consider the side that denigrates, obfuscates, uses purposeful deception, changes data, refuses FOIA requests, etc.

    • There is no middle ground on a right and wrong. The middle ground is for the uniformed. (the ignorant) The political person who doesn’t want to offend. This is wiki… facts by popular vote. Consensus is a toilet word.

      • “There is no middle ground on a right and wrong. The middle ground is for the uniformed. (the ignorant) The political person who doesn’t want to offend. This is wiki… facts by popular vote. Consensus is a toilet word”

        *******************************************************************************************************************
        Why do people wearing uniforms have their own space reserved in the middle ground? :-) teh

        SteveT
        .

    • Why? Because the same admonition applies to every “side” in a debate. The MESSAGE, not the messenger is the only thing that matters. There are loons on every side (four of them have commented on this very post).

      What should be considered is the evidence presented. Period.

      Be better than the targets of your criticism.

  16. “It’s a determined group, and things (as you may recall) get decided by head-counts there. “They” have more heads than we do….”

    No.

    We have more heads,

    they have more (and larger) anal orifices in which to insert their heads.

    (Note: my correction to the above quoted text may not be approved by the appropriate authorities.)

    /grin

  17. I wouldn’t worry. Any half thinking person will spot the massive inconsistencies that call such nonsense into questions.

    In fact, if you read down the page, you get to the following citation, which is of course used to try and discredit WUWT, but unfortunately, contradicts the earlier claims that it, or Anthony is a “denier”. According to Leo Hickman, Anthony and WUWT’s skepticism is “legitimate”.

    Leo Hickman, at The Guardian’s Environment Blog, also criticized Watts’s blog, stating that Watts risks polluting his legitimate scepticism about the scientific processes and methodologies underpinning climate science with his accompanying politicised commentary.”

  18. Feynman used the term cult to designate groups of people that continue to push a specific scientific belief that is no longer supported by observations and analysis. The cult of CAGW cannot defend the cult’s belief that the increase in CO2 will cause catastrophic warming with observations and analysis.

    If it is a fact that if there is no CAGW problem to solve that is a good thing not a bad thing. All of the developed countries are deeply in debt. The green scams are very, very, expensive and do not work. There are more than billion people on the planet that lack access to electricity. Access to reliable, low cost electricity is one of the most important steps in reducing poverty and increasing people’s standard of life.

    Curious the cult of CAGW does not discuss the unintentional consequences of policies connected with CAGW.

    CO2 is not a poison. Life on this planet exists because of CO2, not in spite of CO2. Plants thrive when CO2 increases. Commercial greenhouses injected CO2 into their greenhouses to increase yield and reduce growing time. The optimum level of CO2 for plant life is around 1200 ppm.

    Calling people who discuss peer reviewed papers and observations that disprove CAGW ‘deniers’ is a necessary cop out as the Cult of CAGW cannot defend CAGW.

    The regions of the planet that warmed in the last 30 years (high latitude regions) is the same regions of the planet that warmed when solar activity was high. There has been an abrupt change to the solar cycle. There is observational evidence now of high latitude cooling. There are periods of millions of years in the paleo record when temperature is high and CO2 is low and periods when CO2 is low and the planet is warm. The planet cyclically warms and cools with the cycles of warming and cooling correlating with solar cycle changes. The past warming is not unusual based on previous warming cycles and correlates with a period of very high solar activity.


    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/
    https://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/17/temperature-models-vs-temperature-reality-in-the-lower-troposphere/
    http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/interview-hans-von-storch-on-problems-with-climate-change-models-a-906721.html

    Roy Spencer: Ocean surface temperature is not warming in the tropics.

    http://www.drroyspencer.com/2013/02/tropical-ssts-since-1998-latest-climate-models-warm-3x-too-fast/

    I notice Connelly does not in his blog discuss the dozens and dozens of observations that disprove CAGW. For example 1) the sudden increase in sea ice both poles, 2) the fact that there has been no warming for more than 18 years, 3) the fact that top of the atmosphere radiation analysis vs short term temperature changes shows the planet resists temperature changes rather than amplifies temperature changes, 4) the fact that there has been almost no warming in the tropical regions when the general circulation models predict that the most amount of warming due to CO2 should be in the tropics, and so on.

    Connelly: ‘All right-thinking people will obviously agree that the top one is better; WUWT is denialism’

    • Actually, he was much more specific. A Cargo cult was a specific type of cult that would go though the motions of technology without any understanding of it, and be frustrated that it wouldn’t work.

  19. I have a friend who:

    — invented a number system that is the (only) natural dual of the binary number system, is the most economic number system, and fits hand-in-glove with quantum computing;
    — has the only coherent theory of interest
    — theory of hoarding
    — theory of speculation
    — law of liabilities
    — solved Gibson’s Paradox
    — invented triple entry accounting
    — vastly improved the Braille system

    … I could go on and on and on …

    Wikipedia deleted his entry, citing that he had contributed nothing ‘notable.’

    Yet Kim Kardashian, Paris Hilton, and Miss Piggy live on.

    • Sounds to me like Wikipedia got it right. Perhaps you have a different definition of notable?

      • Many people who have authored a book or two, or had several papers published, are under the impression that this is enough to deserve a Wikipedia article. Generally not. There are guidelines for determining inclusion. Stephen J. Crothers may have done enough, but I took a brief glance at the deleted article, and the deletion appears warranted. That said, if someone were willing to do a little bit of research, there might be enough written about him to try again.

      • Considering what makes it into Wikipedia as permanent articles, I have a hard time buying the integrity and intellectual honesty of all hand-wringing & concerned discussions which preceded before Crothers (and others being deleted)

        He was deleted because of the subject of his work, and the notability argument is very convenient and I find it fraught with double standards and questionable reasoning.

      • RobRoy,

        ‘Struth: I found out from my wife just last week that the Kardashians and Bruce Jenner are related. I’d never understood the K’s claim to fame.

        I don’t consider myself any better off now.

        (But I do know who Miss Piggy is.)

      • Dbstealy

        The K’s are famous for being famous. There have been many in Hollywood over the years. Zsa’Zsa Gabor is a notable example. Asking why she was famous only drew blanks. She got famous for doing things only after she was famous for being famous.

    • If your friend posted an image of “his” self as a 22 yr old curvaceous transgender bubblehead, then his name would be in common parlance, due to the efforts of 17-24 year old male editors who predominate wiki.

      BTW I did not understand (truly understand) much of what he developed.

    • Gibson’s paradox is stated as though it operates with its own independent variables. However, at least for several decades now, the Fed has used interest rates in active attempts to modulate the economy. They don’t like “high” unemployment and they especially don’t like deflation so they play with money/bond issuance and interest rates at will to compensate. Interest rates have some effect if they are in a working range of several percent but now they are so low that reductions have little effect and any increases have major negative results. Gov. banking setting negative interest rates would normally sound just short of nonsensical since then banks can make money with cash on hand and actually have to pay interest on outstanding loans to the borrower and yet this is what some European countries are doing in attempts to further boost their economies. These active control attempts (by flawed humans) basically make the “paradox” moot (and maybe the “coherent theory of interest”).
      Wouldn’t hoarding and speculation come as psychological issues?
      What is the definition for “Law of Liabilities”?
      I am intrigued however by the alternate dual of the binary system.

      • BFL,

        Hoarding and speculation proper (as opposed to gambling) are not psychological issues. Hoarding and speculation are intimately tied to warehousing. The theory of hoarding might better be called the theory of warehousing. (And it should be noted that the warehouseman is not guided by price, but by basis.)

        There are only two ways human beings can deal with future uncertainty: engineering and speculation. The first is widely recognized, the second is widely ignored. To make things worse still, speculation is often confused with gambling, although the difference between the two is quite clear. Speculation deals with risks created by nature; gambling deals with risks deliberately created by man. In contrast with the former, the latter adds nothing to human welfare.

        You might appreciate:

        CAUSES AND CONSEQUENCES OF KONDRATIEV’S LONG-WAVE CYCLE

        http://www.professorfekete.com/articles/AEFCausesAndConsequencesKondratievs.pdf

        * * * *

        On the law of liabilities:

        IS OUR ACCOUNTING SYSTEM FLAWED?
        It may be insensitive to capital destruction

        http://www.professorfekete.com/articles%5CAEFIsOurAccountingSystemFlawed.pdf

        * * * *

        On the natural dual to the binary number system:

        A Primer on Quotient Sets and Stepnumbers

        http://www.maxphoton.com/primer-quotient-sets-stepnumbers/

        Quotient Sets and Stepnumbers

        http://www.maxphoton.com/conversation-with-antal-fekete-quotient-sets-stepnumbers/

      • I have lived a sheltered life. There are mathematical attributions to words I have barely heard. This is terrific.

      • Max, thanks.
        I think that probably any previous effective economic theories have been broadsided by hedge funds, derivatives, CDO’s and the like, most of which have very little effective oversight or regulation and could be considered high leverage gambling. They effectively move money from the bottom to the top tiers without producing any thing of concrete value. World value of these commodities has been placed at around 1.2 quadrillion dollars or about 14 times world GDP. One of the sad downsides of totally “free” capitalism.

  20. I recall an episode wherein Stephen Colbert mustered his entire audience to swarm Wikipedia in an effort to alter the article about African Elephant populations. Yes, the audience OVERWHELMED the idiot editors at wiki. for a brief while… eventually they blocked the elephant site, labeled anyone who edited the article as a Colbert m@sturb@tor and eventually the article went back to a earlier archived state.

    It had the effect of bugging a few elephant enthusiast for a short time.

    I suspect that editing Watt’s wiki page will result in a lock and a reprinting of an archived page dated before today.

    I think Anthony ought to correct the record here at WUWT. It will eventually make it to the mainstream and cancel out wiki. Everyone knows wiki is partisan BS, even the partisans.

    • Well actually I think being derided by wikipedia is a badge of honour – like, If you write a book about economics, you want Krugman to denounce it.

  21. Readers here are not the only ones who think Wikipedia has issues, this is from the 4th quarter 2013 MIT Tech Review

    “The volunteer workforce … has shrunk by more than a third since 2007 and is still shrinking. Those participants left seem incapable of fixing the flaws that keep Wikipedia from becoming a high-quality encyclopedia by any standard, including the project’s own. Among the significant problems that aren’t getting resolved is the site’s skewed coverage: its entries on Pokemon and female porn stars are comprehensive, but its pages on female novelists or places in sub-Saharan Africa are sketchy. Authoritative entries remain elusive. Of the 1,000 articles that the project’s own volunteers have tagged as forming the core of a good encyclopedia, most don’t earn even Wikipedia’s own middle-­ranking quality scores.

    The main source of those problems is not mysterious. The loose collective running the site today, estimated to be 90 percent male, operates a crushing bureaucracy with an often abrasive atmosphere that deters newcomers who might increase participation in Wikipedia and broaden its coverage.”

  22. He who controls the means of communication has a good shot at controlling the present. The goal of the climate kooks and slimeballs is to control the present and hopefully control the future.
    That Wikipedia is too corrupt to stop this sort of overt corruption just shows that Wiki is part of the problem, not part of the solution.

  23. Examples of Bias in Wikipedia: Global warming (from http://www.conservapedia.com)

    A recent charge is that U.K. scientist and Green Party activist and Realclimate.org member William Connolley functioned as a Wikipedia editor and website administrator, repressing information that militated against Climate Change. As such he “rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period.”[48]

    Michael Mann is a well-known global warming alarmist who is ridiculed for his so-called scientific work on tree ring temperature data, the Hockey Stick theory and was the subject of fraud in the Climategate scandal. Wikipedia decides not to allow any mention of his involvement with Climategate. Any mention of Climategate is immediately removed from Mann’s page. [49

    • Lets see — since ALL the World’s Institutions of Science conclude AGW, why should those who can’t earn a spot in the pantheon of valid science and reject Evolution, DNA, Plate Tectonics, or AGW have a place in Wikepedia? It’s not a democracy.

      • In 2004, directors of eleven academies signed a joint statement which accepted IPCC’s unwarranted, baseless, evidence-free, anti-scientific assertion that a human effect could be detected in allegedly observed warming.

        That document was unsupportable then and is worse than worthless now, with eleven more years of flat to cooling global temperature, assuming such a thing is measurable.

      • The proposition that anyone who doesn’t agree with the falsified notion of CAGW is an unscientific bible thumper has been falsified. One contrary example is all it takes.

        Why do you repeat what is clearly a deliberate lie, when repeating it doesn’t strengthen your argument at all?

      • @sturgishooper

        Yes, Unsupported by you and your cohorts. But the PhD publishing Scientists in these Institutions seem to disagree. I trust them, not you.

      • @takebackthegreen

        If it’s so easy to falsify my claim, why don’t you do it? Post an official position statement of one of the Worlds National Science Academies, Scientific Professional Societies, Major Universities, NASA, or NOAA disputing that Man’s burning of fossil fuels is the primary cause of industrial era Global Warming? Go ahead.

      • With all due respect, is something wrong with you? I clearly, obviously, plainly did not address that part of your statement (the part which concerned academies and institutions).

        Try again.

      • warrenlb once again falls back on his favorite logical fallacy, the appeal to authority.

        He’s got nothing else; he has no convincing evidence, for sure.

        But when someone posts the names of more than 31,000 scientists and engineers (including more than 9,000 PhD’s) who refute the demonization of CO2, warrenlb rejects that overwhelming number of authorities, because they’re not his authorities.

        Coukld warrenlb be any less credible?

      • William Finck
        How many scientists (not their organizations) have signed a document stating that CAGW is a large, looming, or devastating threat? Of the few that I have casually seen, it’s much fewer than the 31,000 that they bring up from the OISM.

        Why does a lesser number get a pass from your criticism and why do you consider it more convincing?

      • “…and reject Evolution, DNA, Plate Tectonics, or AGW”

        The fictitious and discredited AGW does not belong in that group. What about linking Deniers with the Holocaust – you haven’t tried that specious line for a while.

        The linking ploy might work for the naive followers of the MSM, but not here.

      • @takebackthegreen

        Oh no. I said anyone who rejects ONE of those sciences (Note the OR AGW in the list) doesn’t deserve place in Wikepedia. Are you self-nominating yourself for my list?

      • Linking lies to support a lie? Thanks, warren. It works fine with useful idiots, like yourself.

    • Yes! It has been edited down to claim there was really no little ice age and today is warmer than the Medieval Warm Period. The goofball even has a doctored graph that elevates today temperatures to be much higher than back then!

      Absolutely disgusting.

  24. Many of the people involved don’t even use their real names, so of course hide behind that anonymity. In my opinion, it’s truly an irresponsible and cowardly way to define “truth” with no responsibility for your actions attached.

    Maybe you should enforce that conviction with your mod dbstealey?

  25. I am very proud to have become over time, a complete denier of AGW and I’ve got 4 higher degrees in Sciences (with lots of statistics LOL). In my view lukewarmers are basically pandering to the AGW folks. There is no evidence whatsoever that in the real world (our atmosphere) 1000’s or 100’s PPM C02 has or has had any effect on Global temperatures over the past 500000 years. Its a complete furfy and the lukewarmers are slowly seeing the light as many convert to the denier category watch this space. The lukewarmers, despite the appalling evidence of massive fraud (refer to Homewood etc), are still feeding the AGW frenzy.

    • It depends upon your definition of Lukewarmer. Which is why sweeping pronouncements of Truth are very rarely helpful in a debate.

      If the definition of Lukewarmer is “a person with basic scientific literacy who recognizes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas but believes Earth’s Climate System is currently too poorly understood to state definitively how much of an effect CO2 has on it,” then I’d say that “Lukewarmer” is the right position to take.

      • “a person with basic scientific literacy who recognizes that CO2 is a greenhouse gas …”

        There are highly educated men and women who argue that CO2 does not do what your “basic scientific literacy” tells you it does. We can disagree without being disagreeable, but please don’t claim that “the science” says CO2 warms the surface via back radiation. The jury is still out on that one.

      • What?

        I did not “claim that ‘the science’ says CO2 warms the surface via back radiation.”

        I said that CO2 is a greenhouse gas, a more general characterization which is not in dispute, having been experimentally demonstrated. Your sentence–which, again, is not mine–says something different and more specific.

        The exact nature and extent of the effect of CO2 in the Earth’s climate system isn’t known. The logarithmic decline in its effect as its percentage rises is a strong argument for it having a tiny influence. But arguing that it has zero influence is obviously wrong (if we measure with enough precision, every atom in the atmosphere has some effect). More importantly, it is a distraction that gives ammunition to the CAGW true believers.

        Why make the already monumental task of repairing all the damage done by the mass CAGW-hysteria even more difficult?

      • It depends on the lukewarmer. Every time Mosher starts spouting off, I get the urge to go full metal denier, just because his smug version of lukewarming is as annoying as the full blown “got Jesus” warmism.

      • tbtg:
        Definition of CAGW Denier: a person with basic scientific literacy who recognizes that changes in CO2 have NOT ONCE in the geologic history of the planet preceded temperature, but ALWAYS followed.

      • Sure, why not? That’s one of a hundred reasons to reject the idea of CAGW. To my mind, “CAGW denier” is an accurate description.

        OTOH, calling someone a “Climate Change Denier” (or being one) is idiotic. “Climate Denier” doesn’t deserve discussion.

  26. I’ve witnessed “science” activists editing wiki during an argument to remove information about a study that undercut their arguments. The website is about as reliable for scientific information as a cork board outside of any college student’s dorm room.

  27. The problem with wikipedia is that the normal user can’t distinguish between “opinion articles” and undisputed facts. For the latter, wikipedia is usually a reliable and detailed source, but the political items are usually quickly highjacked by left-leaning authors which generally seem to have more eagerness and spare time for their opinion wars.

    Since there are more undisputed facts in wikipedia than biased opinion items, many people don’t realize that wikipedia is not at all trustworthy and impartial for political and controversial questions. Therefore, wikipedia has become a valuable propaganda tool for the political left, which is questioning its integrity as an impartial and honest encyclopedia for everybody. As a consequence, I have stopped giving donations to that – formerly very good and sincere – institution.

    In order to regain a generally accepted trustfulness, I suggest that wikipedia should introduce an unmistakable warning banner above every item, which would be red for opinion articles or green for undisputed facts. The decision about the question which status and color every item should get, can be answered easily by all users via a “biased opinion” button, which can be used if anybody thinks so. Thus, after reaching a certain “noise-level” threshold, every biased opinion piece would get its distinct red warning banner.

    With this simple method, wikipedia could become a fair and impartial institution again. So – let’s hope the people responsible do understand the message…

    • “The problem with wikipedia is that the normal user can’t distinguish between “opinion articles” and undisputed facts.”

      I’d say that’s part of the problem. Wikipedia should be more about factually reporting representations of bodies of work and less about trying to the the “arbiter of absolute truthiness”.

      If someone writes a book on why the thing the moon is made of cheese, and it stays on the NYC bestseller list for 10 months, this would make this person notable for that alone. Now, what does wikipedia need to do?

      I think they should:

      Maintain an article covering the basic facts about author and his work and what he asserts. Facts like where he was born, his education, other notable trivia, his magnum opus and reception in scientific and literary circles.

      What they should not do is:

      Dismiss him as being notable because of his book “pseudo-science” subject matter (Wikipedia should not be in the business of classifying science into such categories, just the facts, Ma’am.)

      Editorialize his article by qualifying every pertinent line with selective inserted adjectives, like “highly controversial author”, “pseudo scientific author”, blah blah blah…

      The article should not be a debunking or a refutation of the subject or the subject’s work. It’s fine to have a controversy section, but it should be contained within a “SECTION” not the entirety of the whole article.

      Criticism when given needs to be reasonable in nature, it should suffice to simply state or highlight the more conventional position(s) on the subject. The “consensus” position no doubt has its own article and does not need to be presented point by point.

    • After reading a posting by Richard Ortiz below, I think my suggestion above for a more impartial wikipedia could be improved by a quote from him:

      When an article is marked by a red banner as biased opinion piece, then wikipedia should:
      “allowing pro- and con- articles to be linked so that people could get both sides of an issue. The people in the pro- side couldn’t edit the con- articles, and visa versa. Because both sides, or multiple sides, of an issue could be posted, it also had the effect of keeping the postings more honest.”

    • Refraining from donating is a strategy that will work. I have never contributed to Wikipedia, and never will, specifically because of my interactions with William Connolley and generally because of the blatant bias on any article that deals with a controversial topic.

      I suspect many readers here would agree with me. Perhaps the only thing that is missing is public awareness of this. WUWT attracts many readers. Perhaps if Wikipedia’s behavior would change if they knew just how many potential donors they’re alienating.

  28. The article was recently protected (about an hour ago), with an expiration of 8 June. While this protection is in place, IP editors and very new editors will not be able to edit.

  29. Years ago when I first heard about how people can easily edit and re-edit Wikipedia posts, I stopped using it as a resource.

    I think it’s a good idea if there was a way to set the facts in stone once the facts have been verified.

    • There are multiple, serious discussions about how to do that, while still permitting editing. The editors of medical article are particularly interested in this, and are thinking through some ways to do it.

  30. Wrestling pigs in mud. Bad idea.

    Wiki is good…for things like – A quick biography search, as for Charles Dickens. When his great Grandson came to town to do a one man show about his great grand father, I was able to have a very “educated” conversation with him at the “meet and greet” after the performance.

    However, ANYTHING REMOTELY POLITICAL/CONTROVERSIAL/ETHICAL/MORAL/RELIGIOUS, etc…
    it’s completely dominated by the LOUD LEFTISTS.

    Sad.

    • “Wrestling pigs in mud. Bad Idea”…. exactly. I would like to see the pig pen fence pulled down and the muddy pigs run rampant over everything.

  31. On 22 May the editor Mann jess included the word “denier”

    If you look at their talk page:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Mann_jess

    you can see several editors explaining why this is a problem, including one I think if as a warmist.

    Tillman reverted it (along with other material), Mann replaced it (although the edit summary relates to the other material, not the word itself)

    Then others stepped in, adding and deleting the term. It is currently not in. As noted in my post above, the article is now semi-protected, which will cut down on the war. However, some of those participating are not stopped by the semi-protection, although they are in violation of the one-revert rule, which I expect will be politely pointed out, and forcefully, if ignored.

  32. One of the problems with the WUWT entry is that there are plenty of negative sources against WUWT, because critics will happily include negative descriptions of WUWT. People who are simply using the content of WUWT don’t tend to describe WUWT. So there are few positive descriptions of WUWT.

    Similarly, critics of any specific journal will mention their opinion of that journal. People who trust the journal will simply use the content and tend to not describe the journal itself.

  33. Well CO2 is not a ‘driver’ of climate. It’s an amplifier. Thre is no circumstance that I’m aware of where CO2 increase has preceded temperature rise in the record. If there is I apologise but the Vostok ice cores seem to indicate otherwise.

  34. I am not sure there is a war to win. In my case when I see a blog trashed very badly I am curious just how bad and search for the blog on my own jus to check it out. The very first stuff to hit the screen determines if I stay or not. The very first stuff to hit the screen also plays in my mind as to whether I have the correct site or an imposter as well.
    What come up when wattsupwiththat.com is accessed from and internet search is most important, especially if the warmists are simply portrayed as differing on degree instead of devils. People then read on to try to see why the warmists are so hateful.
    A true disparity between a vitriolic wiki page and simple explanations without hate throws up red flags to those people whom find this site searching as a result of wiki.

  35. Everyone should know the list of atmospheric gasses that absorb upwelling longwave infrared radiation, and then re-radiates it in all directions. And they should know the contribution each type of gas makes. Everyone should also know the amount of warming these gasses provide to an already sunlight globe, based on latitude, longitude and altitude, within the atmospheric layer that includes our experience of weather and ground based temperature. Finally they should be well-informed on the water vapor central component connection to AGW.

    Source 1.

    Re: greenhouse gas emissions. Not a bad source. Only argument I have is that a naturally warmer world in the past also produced substantial increases in CO2. If our industrial world happened to coincide with natural warming, there is scant evidence that the current CO2 increase is all anthropogenic. If natural warming (which is clearly shown in “greening” trends) caused at least some substantial increase in CO2, the left over human emission part would not have enough chops to provide measurable differences in temperature or weather.

    http://omssscience.blogspot.com/2011/06/what-is-greenhouse-gas.html

    Source 2.

    Re: atmospheric water vapor and its theorized increase due to increased AGW CO2 warming. The following link is the trend (1988-2014). Note that water vapor increase visually correlates with El Nino conditions. And we have had a few of those in that time span. Again, scant evidence that any increase is related to human emissions. One would have to exclude ENSO natural variations before ascribing increased water vapor to human emission of warming greenhouse gasses.

    http://images.remss.com/cdr/climate_data_record_browse.html

    Taken all together, there is little evidence that AGW is the significant part of recent warming. Natural sources cannot yet be ruled out. Those climate scientists who say different have failed to perform one of the most important rules of the scientific method, to rule out drivers that were present prior to the industrialized age.

    • No global warming (greenhouse effect) on Titan, which is exclusively the domain of methane (the only GHG constituent in Titan’s atmosphere).
      The laws of physics apply everywhere the same. Since methane doesn’t trap heat and radiate it back in all directions, warming the surface of Titan above ambient as registered at the distance of Saturn, the greenhouse effect doesn’t exist. Either that or methane isn’t a greenhouse gas.

      • papier, you too easily believe what people say or write versus studying physics and chemistry. Many skeptics are well versed in these two topics. Many skeptics are dumb as a post. Let’s get down to Earth. What do you know about the light spectrum and its absorption/re-radiation properties? I would hazard a guess: Apparently very little.

      • There is a greenhouse effect on Titan, but it is predominantly due to nitrogen and hydrogen.

        LOOK IT UP instead of making it up!

      • Hello Philip. Yes I have. That’s McKay’s introduction of the new property of ghg, “the anti-greenhouse effect”. He claims there is a property of methane that makes it invisible to temperature under special circumstances, further that these special circumstances only make methane partially transparent leaving a net warming of 12 degrees Kelvin bring the surface temperature of Titan to ~ 93.65 K, where in the absence of methane it would be a frigid “effective temperature” of 82 K.
        What is an effective temperature?

        This is the puzzling part, because “effective temperature” is a black body Stefan- Boltzmann formulation used to estimate the temperatures of dwarf stars that reside outside of the main sequence Hertzsprung – Russell diagram. McKay uses it as an ad hoc to apply the global warming overlay to other planets. It has no physicality. It’s not supposed to be applied to planetary bodies. There isn’t even a real way to apply it with reliability to solar bodies.
        It amounts to a fudge factor.

        A better method would be to use actual surface temperatures measured in situ at the distance of Saturn.

        That brings us to Hyperion. Hyperion is Titan’s closest neighboring moon. With a practically twin albedo to Titan, and no atmosphere whatsoever, Hyperion’s surface temperature is ~ 93.65 K.

      • Mike and Pamela you can both kiss my …. No need to get insulting.

        I checked this crap out many times from many different angles.

        Why are you all so quick to jump me on about something you haven’t checked out even once?

      • Nitrogen and Hydrogen suddenly have to be green house gases to make McKay’s ad hoc work up a global warming on Titan.

        That should be a clue for you people.

      • Hell, the math doesn’t even work on McKay’s ad hoc formula. Go back and read Philip’s link from Science Mag again. Carefully.

    • Pamela — I will pass on “everyone should know” and proceed to AGW etc. Something tells me you think ENSO natural variations have something to do with periodic increase of atmospheric water vapor content of the atmosphere. You say that visually water vapor increase correlates with El Ninos and I am inclined to believe that on physical grounds. For most of the world El Nino peaks correspond to approximately half a degree temporary increase in global temperature. This should influence water vapor content of air but I was not aware that you could actually see it graphically. But water vapor central component connection to AGW? If you mean it as a positive feedback of absorption by carbon dioxide forget it. The true feedback is negative as Miskolczi has shown. And then you mention human emission of warming greenhouse gases. Ignoring minor contributions, that would be carbon dioxide. It really is a greenhouse gas but there is one problem with it: it does not cause any greenhouse warming of the atmosphere thanks to the presence of water vapor. And without any greenhouse warming the existence of AGW is impossible. It works like this. First, water vapor and carbon dioxide in the atmosphere form a joint optimal absorption window in the infrared whose optical thickness is 1.87, determined by Miskolczi from first principles. If you now add carbon dioxide to the atmosphere it will start to absorb in the IR just as the Arrhenius theory says. But this will increase optical thickness. And as soon as this happens, water vapor will start to diminish, rain out, and the original optical thickness is restored. The added carbon dioxide will of course keep absorbing but the reduction of water vapor keeps total absorption constant and no warming is possible. This is why we have the hiatus/pause now. Its existence invalidates the Arrhenius greenhouse theory used by IPCC. It is actually not the only hiatus we know of. There was another one in the eighties and nineties that lasted from 1979 to 1997 or 18 years, the same as the current one. You do not know about it because the big three of temperature data – GISS, HadCRUT, and NCDC – have covered it up with fake warming. I discovered this when writing “What Warming” and even put a warning about it into its preface but nothing happened. Figure 15 in the book shows this hiatus as it appears in satellite data which these crooks still do not control.

  36. Anyone who would base their opinion on a website based on their Wikipedia entry without actually visiting said site is some kind of incurious creature on whom rational argument would be wasted. Nothing of value is lost.

  37. Even though Wikipedia may be unreliable as a source of information, it is still used by millions of people every day as a reliable source of information. Therefore, as a propaganda tool, wikipedia is rather important for the warmists to control. After reading many wikipedia articles in the area of climate, the warmists have done a really good job of controlling wikipedia, in my opinion.

  38. I find it interesting that this article and comments does not separate natural or anthropogenic c02. I believe there should always be a seperation, C02, is now used in the same way as the morphed term, climate change.

    In a number of discussions I have had these people seemed to believe the majority of C02 is anthropogenic.

    • NC, who are “these people”? I’ve never heard the claim that “the majority of C02 is anthropogenic”. Maybe I travel in the wrong circles.

  39. –typo/spelling/grammar alert–

    Wikipedia has one major flaw in it’s its design…

    That paragraph above should serve as it’s its own entry in the Wikipedia citations for WUWT.

    its, hers, his, ours, theirs, yours

      • Just remember these two words: NEVER POSSESSIVE.
        I.e., no possessive apostrophe when used possessively.

      • ● Apostrophe s is used for possession in all cases, except for personal pronouns

        Throckmorton’s mouth is bigger than yours.

        ● Apostrophe is used for contraction:

        It’s a blast. = It is a blast. The apostrophe in this usage indicates one or more letters have been omitted.

        I should’ve known that.

        ● Apostrophe s is virtually never used for plural, but watch your p’s and q’s – about the only type of exception.

        1950s
        B-52s
        The Roaring ’90s

      • MikeB

        Because that is not what I wrote;

        I used small letters as opposed to your caps, which is my understanding of the rule:

        p’s & q’s
        not
        ps & qs

      • Mike,
        Yes, there are exceptions, and I’m telling you that you’re wrong.

        The well-accepted general rule is that the plural of small letters requires apostrophe s:

        The Chicago Manual of Style says:

        Capital letters used as words, numerals used as nouns, and abbreviations usually form the plural by adding s. To aid comprehension, lowercase letters form the plural with an apostrophe and an s.

        and

        My copy of Practical English Usage, 2nd Edition (Michael Swan, 1995) says this:

        Apostrophes are used in the plurals of letters, and often of numbers and abbreviations.

        He writes b’s instead of d’s.
        […]

        http://english.stackexchange.com/questions/55970/plurals-of-acronyms-letters-numbers-use-an-apostrophe-or-not

        Don’t forget to dot your i’s and cross your t’s.

        –sp–

      • And by the way, MikeB

        Mind your p’s and q’s is written with small letters because that’s what the admonition is all about. Handwritten p and q may be difficult to distinguish, unless one minds one’s p’s and q’s.

      • @Steve: The p’s and q’s were printer’s typefaces. The admonition was not to place them back in the wrong box after a print run.

      • rogerknights May 25, 2015 at 4:06 pm

        Yes, I like that idea too. It probably makes the most sense of any of the several theories about p’s and q’s.

        I first heard that idea long ago when my parochial grade school class visited the local newspaper, where they still used movable type. When the typesetter was talking about the p’s and q’s, I glanced up at good Sister V, who was red in the face, and seemed to be shaking her head slightly, so you see how it is.

        I think the printing and handwriting instructors at my school had laid claim to the expression, so no Johannes-come-lately was going to steal their slogan, because – after all – people were printing and writing (and erasing) long before the printing press was invented.

        However, In the final analysis, there are a number of ideas about the origin of the p’s and q’s expression, but nobody really knows for sure, according to several online sources:


        Many explanations have been advanced down the decades to explain this puzzling expression. It is said to be advice to a child learning its letters to be careful not to mix up the handwritten lower-case letters p and q, or similar advice to a printer’s apprentice, for whom the backward-facing metal type letters would be especially confusing. One has to wonder why p and q were singled out, when similar problems occur with b and d.

        http://www.worldwidewords.org/articles/psandqs.htm


        This last meaning relates directly to one of the more enduring theories surrounding the origin of the phrase, namely that it refers to the difficulty that a young child might initially have in distinguishing the tailed letters p and q, and is therefore something that he or she should attend to with care. This sounds even more plausible when you consider a related theory that it refers to typesetters who would, of course, have to recognise these letters backwards, and could logically therefore be expected to have to take extra care to make sure they weren’t inadvertently mixed up. But, compelling as both of these may seem, there is little evidence to back either up

        http://blog.oxforddictionaries.com/2012/01/origin-to-mind-your-ps-and-qs/

  40. Anthony,

    How about this… Copy the wikipedia page as is. Post it here as non editable on WUWT Go through it, and edit it as it should be, and post the rebuttal bio. Let it serve as a reference for journalists to copy for referenceable articles and your minions here to use.

    • that’s not a bad idea, especially if it is archived to say wayback as well. At least then you have something ‘validated’ from the horses mouth, as it were and ideally – available for direct comparison to the ‘gatekept’ version! In addition, it may serve to highlight any libel content for Mr Wiki to see and take action upon? (I would presume, that having been duly notified, any failure to take direct corrective action would increase potential damages significantly?)

  41. Don’t worry too much Anthony and team. This will end up hurting them more than you.

  42. The refreshing thing about Anthony’s Blog is that there is open discussion. Trolls are allowed to put their two bits in and are only excluded from the discussion when they become repetitive or nasty. As such I think it more readily reflects what the actual discussion is with respect not only to climate but the state of science and politics in general. Taken all together it sort of acts like that bearded guy strolling the streets of Athens with a lamp in the daytime looking for an honest man. Good job Anthony

  43. If you properly edit Anthony’s wiki page, you will get accused of vandalism anyway, so you are vandals!. Also, wiki is libeling Anthony. If that is the way wiki wants to have it then I would find it rather amusing to see obscure pages that hosted currency exchange factors or physical constants, spellings, names, etc altered randomly, unendingly, and voluminously. Since wiki is an unreliable mosh pit anyway, I think that this weakness should be magnified. The dumb editors usually don’t really know much of what is being entered. It would be interesting to see if the continuous random editing of every single article, thereby delegitimizing wiki would serve to force them into being civil and creating a new policy wrt biased populism….speaking as the advocate of the devil so to speak. I would never actually alter the decimal point of a critical physical constant or chemical equation etc. Just saying… people in glass houses (jimmy wales), should not allow their house guests to throw stones.

  44. > Where is YOUR paper

    My papers are plural, and available to anyone capable of using google scholar or any similar search tool:

    https://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?hl=en&q=william+connolley&btnG=&as_sdt=1%2C5&as_sdtp=

    higley7> Little Ice Age… I added a couple of moderate sentences, my changes were quickly removed and I was threatened by William Connolley several times

    Your contributions were undistinguished; this one was good for a brief laff, but can hardly be described as “moderate”:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Medieval_Warm_Period&diff=prev&oldid=334628958

    Others were reverted by quite a few people, for reasons that were explained but that you didn’t seem to understand:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Little_Ice_Age&diff=next&oldid=416422857

    Anyway, as to the WUWT or the AW articles: wiki is actually pretty biased in favour of the article subject, per WP:BLP, unless there are good sources otherwise. The references for the use of the D-word at the WUWT article are extensive.

    Incidentally, I added a note to the article, pointing out that “Watts’s Surface Stations project, an analysis of terrestrial US weather stations, was often discussed on WUWT, but became dormant in 2012”. I do hope that was correct; let me know if I’m wrong.

    ToP> violation of the one-revert rule

    There is no such rule. But you’re right about the semi. People new to wiki should make sure to read the talk page, in particular https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F#For_new_editors:_good_sources_needed

    • After scanning Connolley’s list of papers and reading a couple of them, they seem to fall into one of two (overlapping) categories:

      Those that have been totally falsified by the real world, and

      Those that speculate on the future, as if he knows what will happen

      The first can be completely disregarded as being wrong from the get-go, and as for the second, anyone can make future predictions. Since Connolley has been 100.0% wrong on the subject of man-made global warming up to now, it’s a safe bet that he will continue down the same path.

    • Just read this….

      Anthony is unlikely to erase any of it, but this guy like all the socialist/green/software/athiest/wikihaters (haters that populate wiki) are simply nutzo. This is why the wiki brand is trash.

      Software engineers, try to cram all ideas into a text format, then a wiki layout, and edit it as if they understand the subject. Well, you may know how to code, but the breadth of knowledge claimed by the wiki editors is vast compared to their actual knowledge.

      Listen to the circle logic (like while-do loops) and cross referrals (like case statements) and lists OMG lists…(like …lists), and trap doors (like parity checks). Now we know what an AI Kuzweillian world would be like. Like this robot volume babble blather yakker. Like listening to a Aspergers machine. Creepy and tiresome.

    • Frantically and sweatily he processes, computes,
      Calculates and numerates, frequently refutes,
      the stream of data that offends his machine,
      and compels the switching, clicking, and flicking,
      behind dead soulless eyes.

      Hate is hunger, the fuel to the twitching fingertips,
      animating two dimensional images in a one dimensional string,
      of fury and conflict, and pleasure, and self love,
      as children grow, in the shadow of a hunched statue,
      with dead eyes that don’t see them.

    • “The references for the use of the D-word at the WUWT article are extensive.”

      I don’t think anyone here would dispute that many on the AGW side use the word “denier” to describe those they disagree with. For you to cite that fact as sufficient justification for continued malice is interesting.

      Don’t you think that truth a better choice than “lots of us AGW types think that way”.

    • What does it say about an individual if he is involuntarily removed from a position with Wikipedia because of large-scale misconduct and then feels that it’s appropriate to comment on Wikipedia-related issues?

      Also, enough childish games. “Climate Change Denier” literally means “someone who denies that the climate changes.” Calling other people “Climate Change Deniers” or “deniers” is deliberate lying.

      • What does it say about an individual if he is involuntarily removed from a position with Wikipedia because of large-scale misconduct and then feels that it’s appropriate to comment on Wikipedia-related issues?

        Insane.

      • Paul, this is way over the top. William Connolley was an editor, then both an editor and admin, then had his admin bit removed, but remains an editor. There was absolutely nothing in the admin removal which prohibited him from opining on Wikipedia-related issues.

      • Sounds Like the linear thinking of a programmer. Note: I quoted a previous comment. My attribution of insanity was my only addition to that comment. Wacky sequential/linear/Procrustean thinkers will always refer you to policies and rules and flabble-gab inside the wiki-universe of specialness. I am not interested in the mountain of BS that the twisted minds of wiki editor/admins put between their endless abuse of people, facts, and reality and their disturbing behavior.

        What is over the top is WC’s clearly obsessive and personal focus on A Watts.

        Talk about over the top! Reasonable people can disagree. I judge WC’s behavior as downright…insane.

    • @William Connolley
      Incidentally, I added a note to the article, pointing out that “Watts’s Surface Stations project, an analysis of terrestrial US weather stations, was often discussed on WUWT, but became dormant in 2012″. I do hope that was correct; let me know if I’m wrong.

      I believe it to be wrong. Not only the extract above, but the entire paragraph is badly supported point of view. The article is wrong in what it does NOT say. NOAA admitted that its surface station siting was indefensible and it needed improvement. The topic of bad surface station siting became “dormant”, if that is the right word, because it had been proven and no longer contentious. Accepted as fact.

      You reference one paper of Watts, but fail to mention another: An area and distance weighted analysis of the impacts of station 1 exposure on the U.S. Historical Climatology Network temperatures and 2 temperature trends with Press Release in which

      A reanalysis of U.S. surface station temperatures has been performed using the recently WMO-approved Siting Classification System devised by METEO-France’s Michel Leroy. The new siting classification more accurately characterizes the quality of the location in terms of monitoring long-term spatially representative surface temperature trends. The new analysis demonstrates that reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled, with 92% of that over-estimation resulting from erroneous NOAA adjustments of well-sited stations upward. The paper is the first to use the updated siting system which addresses USHCN siting issues and data adjustments.

      This paper’s link is the pre-submittal draft. You could hold that any source not published in a peer reviewed scientific journal is not worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, but is that consistent with all of Wikipedia’s citations?

      As for the discussion of the topic going dormant…. it generated over 2000 comments in draft (better peer review than most papers) and has been in journal peer-review purgatory ever since. It is a paper that needs to see publication — today! But the Climaterati needs the Watts et al paper buried, never to see the light of day. That is the real reason Wikipedia doesn’t even mention it’s existence.

  45. Quoting David Suzuki as a reliable reviewer of climate issues is a very poor choice. Dr. Suzuki is one of the more rabid anthropomorphic climate change personalities in the world, or certainly Canada.

  46. Well that explains it! I had a hard time believing that Anthony actually smells like a diseased llama, despite what Wikipedia said.

  47. Wholeheartedly agree with earlier commenters who describe wikipedia as an officially sanctioned version of everything; the official story, the official narrative – what big brother says. It’s good for pop and sport trivia, though, if that’s your thing.

    The last functioning redoubts of truth in the media are independent, non-corporate websites such as this (and many others covering equally important subject areas). Without these websites/blogs one would seriously struggle to know what the *** is going on in the world, let alone be able to make any sense of it.

    The cleansing of ‘inconvenient’ information from wikipedia makes me think of Winston altering past news reports in the novel 1984. The cleansing of inconvenient information in the MSM is taken care of by the corporate structure (top-down message), with wikipedia they have to work harder and employ sad, brainwashed, obsessed, intellectual midgets (who think they’re super clever, but are really thick as sh*t) to ‘edit’ articles in support of the ‘official story’. I’m trying to think of the name of one such individual but I’m hearing the call of nature so I’m away to the WC.

    • Kitefreak,

      The reasons for ‘net neutrality’ are not what is officially claimed. It is intended to eventually shut down sites like this, and any others that don’t toe the official line.

      As for your Orwell comment, I’m reminded that in the novel 1984, the protagonist Winston Smith wonders if the State might declare “two plus two equals five” as a fact; he ponders whether, if everybody believes in it, does that make it true?

      So if enough people believe that the completely harmless trace gas CO2 is bad, and must be demonized as “carbon”, does that make it true?

      Certainly, the EPA thinks so. Mr. Smith would probably agree.

      • “It is intended to eventually shut down sites like this”.

        Absolutely. The current US administration is going in that direction with the current or proposed bill to change internet regulation, I believe. The TPP and TTIP secretly negotiated trade deals will guaratee it on a more-or-less global basis, in the not to distant future.

        Here in the UK, our own prime minister said very shortly after winning the recent election:

        “For too long, we have been a passively tolerant society, saying to our citizens as long as you obey the law, we will leave you alone”.

        He was introducing a new anti-terror bill which would provide for the following (to people who have broken no laws but are deemed to be a ‘threat’ by the powers that be):

        “include a ban on broadcasting and a requirement to submit to the police in advance any proposed publication on the web and social media or in print. The bill will also contain plans for banning orders for extremist organisations which seek to undermine democracy or use hate speech in public places, but it will fall short of banning on the grounds of provoking hatred.”

        Here’s our own home secretary trying to justify this BS. The interviewer tries to get her to define what “extremism” is and she will not do it.

        All I’m trying to say is that free speech is very much under threat in our western countries at this time.

    • However well intentioned they may start out the very success of ventures such as Wiki eventually makes them targets for rewriters of history with an agenda according to their own selection. The open way in which it is set up does leave Wiki vulnerable to marauding bands of internet hooligans, who in their day jobs may well be bank managers or perhaps more likely even academics, who allude to academic procedure to dignify their dubious on-line partiality.

  48. The problem is in the very design of WikiPedia. It has a flawed design that encourages gang action.

    One is the demand for NPOV. All the editors think that their view is neutral, when all too often it is biased in a way they neither recognize nor understand.

    A second problem is their “no original research” policy, which effectively rules out corrections and posts by those most involved in development of ideas.

    I tried being an editor on WikiPedia years ago. But I left after trying to correct a review of a book where I found obvious errors. My response, “Go look at the book for yourself. That’s wrong.” met hostile pushback and that such an action was original research, not allowed on WikiPedia. Crazy!

    What is needed is a design more like the late Wikinfo site, unfortunately no longer around, that addressed those failings of WikiPedia.

    There original research was allowed.

    That site addressed the NPOV problem by allowing pro- and con- articles to be linked so that people could get both sides of an issue. The people in the pro- side couldn’t edit the con- articles, and visa versa. Because both sides, or multiple sides, of an issue could be posted, it also had the effect of keeping the postings more honest.

    It wasn’t perfect, but far better than WikiPedia.

  49. Ubikwit, the principle devil harassing A Watts wiki and talk page, conspicuously has no references to Anthony Watts on “its” talk page. I think Ubikwit is deeply concerned about a personal lawsuit for libel. When a person shows a behavior showing anticipation of a lawsuit, it can be used as evidence of forethought to the libel, which could enable greater damages. Ubikwit may be digging a very deep legal grave. Anthony, hopefully has been copying the dialogue on the talk pages. Seems to me that the obsessive attention this one user is given A Watts, betrays a deliberate and specific evidence of intending harm to A Watts, person and profession.

    • Watts should also sue Desmogblog and Sourcewatch for repeating as fact the libel in Gleik’s discredited Strategy document that he is funded by Heartland. Many people believe that libel and have faith in those two sites.

      • yup.. would love to see their faces when the sheriff drains their bank accounts from behind their aliases.

  50. Confirmation that WUWT is exceedingly relevant. The more alarmists target you, the more effective you are.

  51. While my comment was tongue-in-cheek, it contained a serious proposal. Rather than defend the entry legitimately, it might well be more effective to completely discredit the attacks through parody. The entry itself is irrelevant in the large scheme of things, so why not have fun with the “editors”.

  52. Why not start a “IP Address Shaming” section? Just like publishing hate mail, this would show the extent at which haters hate. Plus, if ever there’s a way to know about it, you should also publish other edits the IPs make to inquire about their willingness to bend the truth

  53. Why , if I might ask, does Wikipedia report :- The tagline of the blog is “News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news.”[2] , when clearly the tag line rightly says something more like :- ” it’s the best blog on the World ” OWTTE ?

  54. I’ve been a Wikipedia editor for many years. I tried to fix a number of known inaccuracies on climate and renewables related pages. In doing so I restricted my activities to items that were well known and proven to be in error, so there could be no accusation of ‘denialism.’ The edits were immediately reverted, sometimes before I could even check my work. Which suggests that some organisation is paying people like Connelly to sit watching for changes to such pages and immediately revert them. After all, who would do that for free?

    Notably if you correct errors in pages unrelated to climate, the same does not happen. In some cases you may even be thanked for correcting errors.

    It is also notable that a very high proportion of the references on climate/renewables pages are direct or indirect self-references. Wikipedia rules actually forbid this kind of self-referencing , and normally you’d get your knuckles rapped for putting up a page extolling your own product whose references are all to your own product website, or to press releases written by your own company. Yet, the renewables guys get away with it all the time.

    For example, you may legitimately write, “The supplier CLAIMS that just three of these turbines will replace the National Grid” and support that with a reference to the supplier’s website, but you may not write, “Just three of these turbines will replace the National Grid” and reference this to the turbine supplier’s ads. In that case, the claim must be referenced to an independent and reliable authority on the matter.

    If anyone’s prepared to put the work in, and it would be a fair amount of work, then it might be worth flagging such dubious self-referencing links with the appropriate wiki tags. I daresay they’ll try to remove the tags without correcting the self-references, but it’s worth a try.

    An example of the type of header added to self-referencing pages with no independent support of content: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lufkin_Industries
    There are also various flags which can be attached to unreferenced or improperly referenced claims in the body of the article. The keyword here is referencing; nothing on Wikipedia should be original content, it should all be traceable back to verifiable sources OTHER than the author of the article.

    • Early and comprehensive reversion, heh, such assiduous attention is evidence of a guilty conscience scared to death. Guilty of what, you may ask. Scared of what is obvious.
      ============

    • Why not start a wikipedia page that is a growing list all the climate related facts that keep being reverted? Does wikipedia have a log system of changes made so a log summary of such topics could itself become a wikipedia entry that can’t be changed only extended as more and more re-revisions are entered?

  55. No one should ever do serious research via Wankerpedia. Who wants to rely on an “encyclopedia” whose facts can be sent down the memory hole and replaced with lies at any time? The last time I checked, the Wanki article on Jamestown had no mention of the colony’s early experiment with communism and its eventual replacement with private ownership. The famous quotation, “Let he who does not work, not eat” has been stricken from their Jamestown history.

    This is tampering with a vital fact, the impracticality of communism in society. Are we doomed to repeat this experiment over and over again?

  56. OK.
    So the fanatics are trying to censor WUWT by influencing search engines through lying on Wikipedia.
    It happens.

    But why now?
    They must be really worried about how Paris is going to go.

    Hee, hee, hee.

  57. Anthony and commenters

    Someone may be using my name to comment on WUWT. Philip is a pretty common name however Finck is quite unusual unless you are in Germany. I only know of one other Philip Finck and he is a nuclear physicist in the US. I wanted to throw that out there as I have occasionally commented but as a government geologist want to ensure that comments are appropriately attributed.

  58. Ian Macdonald> The edits were immediately reverted

    {{cn}}

    > some organisation is paying people

    Wrong.

    > It is also notable that a very high proportion of the references on climate/renewables pages are direct or indirect self-references

    On pages like GW, and all the others I’m familiar with, this is false. Do you have any examples?

    > “Let he who does not work, not eat” has been stricken from their Jamestown history

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/He_who_does_not_work,_neither_shall_he_eat

  59. Ian MacDonald says:

    some organisation is paying people

    Connolley asserts:

    Wrong.

    That is the usual Connolley misinformation; how the hell would he know?

    Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus

    Connolley is falsus in omnibus. The truth is not in him.

  60. Ian has an important insight. Immediate reversion is pathognomonic for a mortally ill narrative.

    Not so much the thoughtful ferret, more the wounded viper striking at every hot spot.
    ==========================

  61. William, you make a tarentellic extravaganza with your neediness. Like the constant interrupter in a conversation, which stifles dialogue, constant immediate reversions are not a natural development for any narrative. You sadly risk complete irrelevance as the conversation finds its inevitable course. You are already burdened with a scandalous reputation. None of this should surprise you.
    ===================

  62. I quote Anthony: “…I don’t “deny” climate change or global warming, it is clear to me that the Earth has warmed slightly in the last century, this is indisputable. I also believe that increasing amounts of CO2 in Earths atmosphere are a component of that warming, but that CO2 is not the only driver of climate as some would have us believe…”

    Sorry about your believing all that. I do deny the reality of global warming caused by anthropogenic carbon dioxide gas. The other warmings they cite are irrelevant. No other conclusion about carbon dioxide can be derived. The existence of the present day hiatus/pause and the existence of previous hiatuses that you have not even heard of demand this conclusion. Miskolczi greenhouse theory, MGT, explains precisely why this is so. Foremost of these historical hiatuses I refer to is the one in the eighties and nineties. It lasted from 1979 till the beginning of the super El Nino in 1997. That is 18 years, the same as the current hiatus has lasted. The reason you have not heard of this is a cover-up by the global climate temperature monopoly of GISS-HadCRUT-NCDC. They have cooperated to show this timeline as a rising temperature region, part of the so-called “late twentieth century warming.” They used computer processing to bring their differing data sets into accord but unbeknownst to them the computer left traces of its presence in all three, supposedly independent, data sets. These comprise sharp upward spikes near ends of years, in exactly the same locations in all three publicly available data-sets. I discovered it while doing research for my book [1] n 2008 and even put a warning about into its preface. It was totally ignored. ENSO was active at that time and produced a wave train of five El Nino peaks, with La Nina valleys in between. The center point between an El Nino peak and the bottom of the adjacent La Nina valley marks the location of the global mean temperature when the oscillation occurred. If you mark these points for all of the ENSO waves shown they form a horizontal straight line, showing complete absence of warming. Figure 15 in my book shows the result. This way the existence of that hiatus is self-calibrated for anyone who knows what to do with temperature curves. The hiatus is then followed by the super El Nino of 1998 which is not part of ENSO. That El Nino is in turn followed by a step warming in 1999. In only three years it raises global temperature by a third of a degree Celsius and then stops. This is a substantial part of the 0.8 degrees that Hansen allows for the entire twentieth century. Thanks to it all 21st century temperatures from that point on are warmer than the twentieth century was (except for 1998). It is also the only warming during the entire satellite era. It’s start-stop behavior rules out greenhouse warming as its cause and demands an oceanic origin for it. Hansen did not understand this and thought that twenty-first century warming was greenhouse warming. Because of this step warming the two horizontal straight lines belonging to the hiatus of the eighties and nineties and to the current hiatus do not line up. The history of global temperature in the satellite era since 1979 is then comprised of two hiatuses, separated by the super El Nino of 1998 and the step warming that follows it. This leaves no space over for any greenhouse warming in the satellite era. Any attempt to use a straight line approximation that includes these two regions is just plain stupidity, a demonstration of pseudo-science by the so-called climate “scientists” who are allowed to jiggle the data they don’t understand. Or maybe not. It could also be a deliberate attempt to create an imaginary warming where none exists.

    [1] Arno Arrak. “What Warming? Satellite view of global temperature change” (CreateSpace 2010)
    .

  63. Connolley, and his sock puppets went no where , they still carpet bomb the area to keep it in-line.
    There are good reasons why salt should always be taken with Wiki

  64. The problem with climate science is that the science has become indistinguishable from the politics. We end up with Science + politics = stupid.

    Yeah physics can predict where Mercury will be in its orbit 100 years from now, it cannot predict the state of earths Eco-system any more than evolution can predict the next transitional species. Politics bless its soul is quite happy to predict the state of all of Earths Ecology or anything else it feels like predicting.

    The problem with Wikipedia is it is inept at dealing with politicized subjects, which climate certainly has become.

  65. Just facts? But I so want to say that Michael Mann is a no good dumbo nothing. Wait that is a fact! Oh goody.

    • How is this helpful? Unless your goal is to make skeptics look like mouth-breathing idiots?

  66. Anthony and his colleagues do seem to accept that CO2 causes additional warmth at a planetary surface that would not be present for a non GHG atmosphere.

    However, I think they are wrong for reasons I have set out in other threads.

    Quite simply, the Earth’s surface is radiating photons from the surface at a rate commensurate with 255K and not 288K because the other 33k is locked into collisional activity at the surface which allows for the holding of the weight of the atmosphere off the surface in hydrostatic balance.

    If the surface were to radiate more photons upward then the atmosphere would fall to the surface.

    Only 255K is exiting the surface by way of radiation to space and CO2’s blocking of certain wavelengths doesn’t have any effect because 255K is what exits to space.

    Convective adjustments deal with it so that there is zero radiative greenhouse effect. It is all mass induced.

    • I agree with what you are saying. It is just that the AGW conjecture provides a very simplistic, even though incorrect, explanation of how the Earth radiates to space. I have always had problems with the AGW conjecture because so much is wrong and so much is left out but apparently the simplicity of it has been sold to many. What is needed is a simplistic but correct explanation of how the Earth radiates to space showing how changes in so called greenhouse gases and in particular CO2 do not affect climate.

      • GHGs absorb radiation from the ground and fail to radiate the 15u wavelength to space. Due to the resistance to downward IR caused by increasing density beneath ( declining ptobability of photon emission as one descends) their downward IR is absorbed into additional collisional activity in the vertical column which distorts the lapse rate slope to the warm side INSTEAD OF warming the surface.

        That decrease in probability of upward photon emission as one descends into greater density puts a stop to any surface thermal effect from back radiation.

        Every photon sent downwards by one GHG molecule is absorbed by the next GHG molecule beneath it and there is a reduced probability of re-emission.

        The result is that as one moves downward any back radiation is steadily reabsorbed molecule by molecule and integrated into additional convective overturning which converts that back radiation to potential energy within enhanced convective uplift.

        In due course that potential energy returns to the surface as kinetic energy beneath the mearest descending convective column (in descent the lapse rate slope is distorted to the cool side to an equal extent as it was distorted to the warm side in the ascent) and is promptly radiated to space by the surface via the full range of wavelengths thereby by passing the blocked wavelength for the GHG that caused it in the first place.

        The distortion to the cool side in descent is a result of the simple fact that adiabatic descent preserves the initial temperature differential through the descending column so that if the previous ascent pushes higher to a colder higher then the entire descending column becomes as much colder as the ascending column was warmer.

        That is an aspect of convection that seems unknown nowadays but was once common knowledge.

        The surface temperature never changes because the enhanced convective uplift cools the surface beneath it exactly as much as the extra potential energy in the descending column warms it.

        But it is too little to measure in any event because the entire process is mass based and GHGs have very little mass as a proportion of the entire atmosphere.

        One sees far greater changes from solar and oceanic variability.

        That is the simple but correct explanation of how changes in GHGs do not affect climate.

        Please pass it on and it would be nice if you could mention the concept as coming from me.

      • Typo correction:

        The distortion to the cool side in descent is a result of the simple fact that adiabatic descent preserves the initial temperature differential through the descending column so that if the previous ascent pushes higher to a colder, higher LOCATION then the entire descending column becomes as much colder as the ascending column was warmer.

      • What you are saying sounds great to me but it is still going to be difficult to sell, as is, to those who have learned by roat that CO2 causes global warming I will have to play with the ideas that you have presented and see what I can do to add to my narrative. Many do not understand how the convective greenhouse effect works so I often have to argue in terms of the really mythical radiative greenhouse effect just because it seems simpler and that is what people have been taught. Many statements about the radiative greenhouse effect are significantly wrong but people believe them. For example, there is the statement that greenhouse gases absorb IR radiation and then re radiate the IR radiation in all directions and that all directions is either up or down and that the downward re radiation warms the Earth. Some statements of the greenhouse effect claim that CO2 acts as a 90% reflector reflecting IR radiation back to Earth and in doing so causes the Earth to warm. The AGW conjecture ignores any other form of energy transport other than IR radiation and it ignores that our atmosphere is in a gravitational field.

  67. “Watts’s Surface Stations project, an analysis of terrestrial US weather stations, was often discussed on WUWT, but became dormant in 2012. In 2011, Watts claimed that siting differences revealed by the Surface Stations project showed higher than actual temperatures, which he called a warm bias. In conjunction with the Heartland Institute, he published a report on the project.[5] However, when his report was published, it indicated that his trends matched the previous results and did not show a bias, as claimed.[6] That conclusion was confirmed by other independent studies, including the Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature Project, and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, which both found that the sites studied by Watts did not influence the finding of a warming trend.[5][7]”

    What’s biased about that?

  68. Just checked the Wikipedia entry and it had the following flags at the top:-

    This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (May 2015)

    Editing of this article by new or unregistered users is currently disabled.
    See the protection policy and protection log for more details. If you cannot edit this article and you wish to make a change, you can submit an edit request, discuss changes on the talk page, request unprotection, log in, or create an account.

    The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2015)

    The entry itself is pretty neutral.

    • Yes, I agree the entry looks pretty neutral currently. I didn’t see the awards that WUWT won from http://2013.bloggi.es/ – a lifetime award and a Best Science or Technology Weblog award…

      • Yes, i think the entry is now about as NPOV as you are likely to find on anything climate related on Wikipedia. If you look at the Talk page, the experienced Wiki editors interested in this article seem to be very fair and have taken into account the views expressed, deleting virtually every reference to Anthony as a denier “while the matter is discussed”. I would leave well alone now for fear of attracting the Wikimedia climate mob to the article. The most powerful argument against reinstating the “D word” was this stream of invective pointed out in the Talk section:
        http://www.populartechnology.net/2014/02/skeptics-smeared-as-holocaust-deniers.html
        Shocking stuff. It isn’t surprising that most of the comments are by politicians and journalists rather than scientists.

  69. I believe that Man’s burning up our fossil fuel resources as quickly as possible is not a good idea and I would like to use the idea that CO2 causes climate change as an additional reason for conserving on the use of fossil fuels. But AGW is very selective “science” with a lot left out. A real greenhouse does not operate on the basis of “heat trapping” greenhouse gases. A real greenhouse works because the glass, while allowing solar energy to enter, limits cooling by convection. So too on Earth. The atmosphere keeps the surface warm because gravity limits cooling by convection. It is the convective greenhouse effect that is why the Earth’s surface is 33 degrees C warmer than it would otherwise be if there were no atmosphere. A radiative greenhouse effect is not needed to explain it. So if a radiative greenhouse effect did exist, it must be very small. If CO2 did effect the climate the way that the AGW conjecture says it should then one would expect that the changes in CO2 we have been experiencing would affect the natural lapse rate in the troposphere but apparently such is not the case. So if a radiant greenhouse effect does actually exist, it must be very small, much smaller than the AGW conjecture claims it to be. To make the potential climate effects of CO2 seem significant, the AGW conjecture includes the idea that H2O provides a positive feedback to changes in other greenhouse gasses because more greenhouse gases causes warming at the Earth’s surface and lower atmosphere which causes more H2O to enter the atmosphere which in turn causes even more warming which in turn causes even more warming which in turn causes even more warming … . The whole situation sounds very unstable yet the Earth’s climate has been stable enough for life to evolve for at least the past 500 million years. But the AGW conjecture leaves out what else must happen in the atmosphere if changes in CO2 have any effect on climate. Besides being a greenhouse gas, H2O is a primary coolant in the Earth’s atmosphere moving heat energy from the Earth’s surface, which is mostly H2O itself, to where clouds form. According to energy balance models, more heat energy is moved by H2O via the heat of vaporization then by both LWIR absorption band radiation and convection combined. An increase in H20 also serves to decrease the temperature lapse rate which is further evidence that H2O is a coolant and acts to reduce the thermal insulation properties of the atmosphere. Then there is the issue of clouds and what happens in the upper atmosphere. When everything is included, H2O provides ample negative feedbacks to changes in other greenhouse gases so as to mitigate any effect they might have on climate. Then when you add the idea that there is no real evidence in the paleoclimate record that CO2 has any effect on climate it becomes very difficult to argue that CO2 has a significant on climate. What the AGW conjecture leaves out, Wiki… also leaves out. The claim is that CO2 absorbs IR radiation but then re radiates it out in all directions. If that is so then CO2 does not trap heat as provided for by IR radiation but acts as a diffuse reflector. If CO2 is suppose to be such a good insulator can anyone provide an example where CO2 is used as an insulator in any engineering application?

  70. Wikipedia never had any standing with thoughtful people. It’s a fad type of thing.

    • “It’s a fad type of thing.”
      Nope
      It’s here forever now.
      There’s already at least one generation of web users that haven’t had to be bothered by learning by researching, it’s a quick jump to wiki and voila, they have their “facts’.

  71. What is even scarier is that the liberal elitist want and are working on replacing college texts with the equivalent of Wikipedia textbooks.

      • Can you imagine taking a course in a topic using a text that is under constant revision. Think of what they could do with history. Then there is the possibility you learn a fact which is changed by the time te exam is written and thus you do not answer the question correctly.

  72. The gang of Wikipedia editors who control the climate science pages are a fearsome bunch. They are experts in all the rules and regulations of Wikipedia, and will not hesitate to come down like a sledgehammer on any Wikipedia editor who, even innocently, posts anything that conflicts with the CAGW “settled science” consensus. Statements of opinion and characterizations (whether cited or not) that coincide with the accepted “consensus” view will be left alone, and if removed as being personal opinion will be very quickly reinserted. On the other hand, reporting on the conclusion of a scientific paper that conflicts with the accepted “consensus” view will be struck from the page as not being from a respected or reputable source, but anyone who reverts an edit by one of the alarmist editor gang will be accused of violating the rules and will be immediately threatened with “sanctions” (being banned from editing in Wikipedia). Anyone who argues with them or suggest that they may be being unfair or biased in any way will be even more quickly sanctioned and threatened with being banned, for violating the rule against criticizing another editor (though you yourself may be freely criticized, of course). It is a vicious gang who apparently have the approval and protection of the higher-ups in Wikipedia (and indeed, include members of the Wikipedia aristocracy). Casual editors who are only trying to correct the record quickly learn not to mess with them; it’s like touching a hot stove.

  73. I don’t know if this has been mentioned in comments – too many to read right now: McAfee site advisor began giving me a dangerous site warning when I entered WUWT around a week ago. I don’t know if this is done independently by McAfee, or if it’s based on Google info, but fascism is no longer creeping, it’s advancing faster than my internet speed.

  74. Wikipedia also blocks you if you use a VPN service for personal security. I tried correcting some typos a couple days ago and was blocked, something about my IP adress being an ISP instead of an endpoint. Or something to that effect. So it’s ok for the gatekeepers to be anonymous, but I have to let down my security in order to edit.

  75. If Adolf Hitler had engaged the Climate Change lobby to organise his propaganda instead of one Dr Goebbels who was an amateur in comparision — who knows what would have been the result. It just demonstrates the enormous power of being able to dumb down the population and feed them what suits the rulers. The knowledge of physics and chemistry in the UK’s population today is minimal compared with sixty odd years ago. I suspect the US is similar.

  76. Wikipedia is not a reliable source.

    Just accept it – and make sure others know.

    Let’s be frank, if Michael Mann is not one of the editors on Climate articles and probably in with the gang on this WUWT – I’ll eat my hat.

  77. Many people still seem to make the mistake thinking Wikipedia is or should be a resource that reflects upon some topic the most “truthful” or most fair or “correct” by some general standard. Like an encyclopedia generally might aim with their selection of experts!

    But that is the wrong idea h ere . Just drop it. The “five pillars” which form the editing policy refer amongst other things to NPOV, the neutral point of view, which is not about posting neutral articles as one perhaps might suspect. The general idea here is to “document and explain the major points of view, giving due weight with respect to their prominence in an impartial tone”.

    If the “major point of view” in the larger world of “notable” publications contains opinions and views which one sees as disagreeable, this will influence the experience of reading a Wikipedia article, all by design!

    The point is to strive for a balanced overview of all major views. When it comes to being “denialist” or not, the fact is that *others* have been concluding this and have been *publicizing* that view rather seriously. Wikipedia or its host of editors cannot change that for you.

    That’s also the weak point of Wikipedia of course as it becomes an echo well for the mainstream view, being it correct or wrong ultimately. Which is fine for topics where most people more or less seem to agree on. But there are a few famous examples where it’s more difficult, where a relatively large group of people are doubting mainstream publications.

    So don’t blame Wikipedia but blame the lack of notable publications critical of climate change and/or more accurate reflections on the nature of WUWH. When that changes, the wiki will change. All other conspiracy drivel is just an artifact of not understanding the medium. It took me a while too so I’m not blaming anyone for being a bit slow to catch on here.

    • Ah, “notability.” That’s a good one, because no one at Wikipedia follows their own “notability” rule, which explicitly states that “notability” does not apply to the content of an article including the prominent of sources. It applies only to whether a topic is important enough to deserve an article.

      Yet, the edit wars at Wikipedia frequently revolve around whether a source is “notable,” or a section of an article is “notable.” Point out to people that “notability” doesn’t deal with those issues, and you’ll be ignored. It’s one of many examples of Wikipedia’s “rules” being a joke.

  78. Read the Wikipedia entry after reading your commentary above. The WP is actually worse than I anticipated. I noticed the 3rd reference about your site goes to Media Matters. I can imagine the smirk on the fact of whoever slipped that reference in at WP. anyway, I wrote about this this morning. As a lifelong conservationist, I believe the government-industrial warming complex will wreak more havoc on our environment than the dirtiest coal mine could in the 1950s.

  79. When I checked Wiki yesterday after reading this article, the entry appeared to have been fixed. Today, however, it is back to the “denial” form.

    “Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change denial[a] created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.[1][2]”

    As of noon (eastern).

    • Zombie,

      That negates all the excuses and rationalizations that Connolley has been making, doesn’t it?

      It also demonstrates how worthless Wikipedia is for unbiased information. People might as well go to hotwhopper for what good Wikipedia is on this subject.

      I would love to ask the person who re-edited that entry to define WUWT as “a blog dedicated to climate change denial” and ask him what he means. That sentence makes no sense to any thinking person.

      Maybe Connolley could explain it…

      • @dbstealey

        You say: “I would love to ask the person who re-edited that entry to define WUWT as “a blog dedicated to climate change denial” and ask him what he means.”

        I say: I imagine that the re-edited Wikipedia entry means ‘a blog dedicated to rejecting the findings of peer-reviewed science’.

      • It is unfortunate that these things happen, and people like Connolley should be banned from editing. But I do think it’s unfair to suggest that Wikipedia as a whole is of no value because of people like Connolley.

        When I was growing up, I didn’t have the internet or Wikipedia. It would have been great if I did. Instead, I had good old fashioned bound encyclopedias. Many entries in our set of encyclopedias were out of date simply because our encyclopedias were a few years old. Other entries were colored / biased due to the political landscape that existed when those entries were made. Sadly, there was no internet to zap new information into my encyclopedias or to correct or alter politically-biased entries.

        Wikipedia has its problems, but it’s still better than the bound encyclopedias I grew up with.

      • @warrenlb:

        For once in your life, try to respond without falling back on your ridiculous appeal to authority logical fallacy.

        To be honest, I don’t think you’re capable of doing it for any length of time. The reason is obvious: your logical fallacies take the place of facts and evidence. Your man-made global warming argument lacks even the most basic measurements. So all you’ve got left are your logical fallacies. You’re a classic DK example.

        The conman William Connolley says that WUWT is “a blog dedicated to climate change denial”. Yet when I try to comment on alarmist blogs, most often my posts never see the light of day. But you get to emit your nonsense here, so what is being “denied”?

        You won’t admit it and neither will Connolley, but you’re saying that scientific skeptics take the position that the climate never changes. Of course, that is a lie. You’re lying. In fact, it was Michael Mann who fabricated his bogus chart showing that the MWP and the LIA never happened. In other words, Mann falsely showed that the climate didn’t change. So the whole “denialism” accusation is nothing but psychological projection: imputing your own faults onto others. You are the deniers.

        One thing is clear: neither one of you has any probity. The truth is simply not in you.

      • Oh, hey, warrenlb admits his confirmation bias.

        warren me boi, it seems you haven’t been following the conversation under the head article. Wikipedia is not credible. At all. It is so extreme in its bias on climate issues that it is a parody of extremism. So naturally it’s right up your alley.

        You are tap-dancing around trying to justify the nonsense phrase “climate change denial”. I’ve tried to teach you how Michael Mann denied that the climate changed by falsely erasing the MWP and the LIA. But the D-K effect has a tight hold on you. You don’t even recognize your psychological projection. You are the ‘climate change denier’.

        Sit up straight and pay attention for once: skeptics have never “denied climate change”. But Michael Mann has, and since you’re one of his acolytes, you do too. Skeptics understand better than you do that the climate always changes, constantly and everywhere.

        The phrase “climate change denial” is used only by nincompoops. The same as “denier”, “denialist”, and all the other mindless versions of that stupid phrase. If you want to be in the subset of nincompoops, continue to use it. That identifies you and everyone else who uses that stupid phrase.

      • To dbstealey’s point,

        I doubt that any who are skeptical that CAGW has a scientific foundation deny climate. I have not encountered a single person who denies that climate changes. I think we all agree that climate changes, it has always changed and that it will continue to change. The use of the term “climate denier” is a pejorative slight that is untrue in all cases.

        The liars who use that term are engaging in a propaganda war. Pure and Simple.

        To deliberately distort a data set to hide a decline, or the truncate a data set to hide previous warm climate, which nobody here at WUWT has done, is quite an act of deception, and based on the Climategate emails, seems to have been done with intent. What to call that? I’d call that a lie.

        To deliberately omit data to advance a theory that the omitted data contradicts is a lie by omission.

        Michael Mann lied.

        MWP was warmer than today in England. To say that isn’t true is a denial of a factual data set.

        So who are the deniers?

      • I love the way warren rejects any peer reviewed science that doesn’t agree with what his pal reviewed science has found.

      • If you are serious when you say “I would love to ask the person who re-edited that entry to define WUWT as “a blog dedicated to climate change denial” ” let me know and I’ll tell you how to do it.

    • As of 10:30 am PST it changed back to “Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change issues[a] created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.” It was different just 20 minutes earlier.

      • dbstealey, you are right. Now, at 1:20 pm PST it is “Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial[a] created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.” This is terrible. I have work to do but now I’m totally distracted by this wikidrama.

  80. Jeez

    ‘n late 2009, an archive containing emails and other documents from the Climate Research Unit of the University of East Anglia was leaked to the public. WUWT was one of three blogs “sent links to the cache of CRU leaked material, via anonymous servers, on the same day, Tuesday 17 November”.[12] On the morning of 17 November 2009 (California time), a link was posted anonymously on WUWT to a Russian server containing the CRU emails and documents. Charles Rotter, a moderator for WUWT, noticed the link and notified Watts. Rotter made a CD copy of the files which he gave to Steve Mosher to analyze. Mosher called some of the individuals named in the emails and confirmed that the emails were genuine. Mosher began posting the contents of the emails on other blogs, including Climate Audit. Shortly thereafter, still on 17 November, Watts gave Rotter permission to post the emails and files on WUWT. Because of WUWT’s high traffic count, according to Fred Pearce of the Guardian, this was the catalyst which broke the story to the media.[13] In his blog for the Daily Telegraph, James Delingpole wrote that “Climategate”, a term often used in the popular press to describe the controversy, was originally coined by a commenter in a post on WUWT.[14]”

    These idiots cant get the dates right.

  81. > I would love to ask the person who re-edited that entry

    But you can (or at least you could, if you were brave enough to venture out of the walled garden)! Because the wiki page has a talk page, designed exactly for this kind of information exchange. Look, its here:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F

    But actually, its even better than that, because the wiki page has a history tab (are you sure you’re comfortable with high tech?):

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&action=history

    And if you press that, you can fairly readily find:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=664117352&oldid=664101984

    and the author of that change has helpfully explained themselves:

    “Undo, and restore significant sources removed yesterday, which have been supported by consensus.”

    And then further explained themselves on the talk page:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F&diff=664116868&oldid=664116022

    Do you need to be spoon fed any more?

    • William,

      I’m happy to see you being spoon-fed here at WUWT. You might learn a lot, if you ever decide to open your mind.

      Ta’

      (BTW, thanx for the links, but if I want to be spoon-fed mindless propaganda, there are far better sources than yours.)

    • I made my offer, before seeing that William Connolley had already explained. It seems clear [from] your response, [that] you weren’t actually serious.

    • Anyone feel like writing a page on “global warming cultist?” They are a strange and loony species, could be fun.

    • NO, Connolley. No, no no. You can’t change the meaning of words, nor the obvious meaning of phrases built from unambiguous words. You know very well what the phrase “Climate Change Denier” means to any English speaker without an agenda. It means “someone who denies climate change.”

      Your unethical trick works like this: anyone who denies that the climate changes is clearly ignorant. By trying to make the phrase “Climate Change Denier” mean “someone who isn’t convinced that manmade CO2 is causing unnaturally rapid current climate change,” you are trying to rhetorically undermine legitimate lines of reasoning.

      Here’s the borderline psychotic aspect of such activity: Why would a CAGW-er even WANT to “win” a debate over a scientific issue by using stupid, dirty tricks? Do you think that winning popular opinion will cause a false understanding to stand for all eternity? Eventually, the truth will out. Yes, other scientific disagreements have gotten ugly and personal, but they have never been decided by rhetoric. How sad it would have been for Darwin to try to use theatrics, rhetorical tricks, public relations stunts and petty name calling to advance his Theory.

      I don’t want to know what your motivation is; it is enough to know that it isn’t the pursuit of knowledge and understanding.

      That’s a shame.

    • And that one article, in itself, is EXACTLY the problem.

      A one-eyed description of a so-called problem that creates its own definition in narrow subjective language and then seeks to scatter-gun anyone or anything that it deems fair game.

      It’s apparently supported by a huge raft of references to make it look authoritative. Only, when you look at them, it’s mainly a bunch of newspaper articles in “the usual papers” by “the usual suspects”, links to blogs and books that are equally polarised and politicised on one side of the debate.

      Gore, Oreskes, Mooney, Cook, Monbiot, Grauniad, NY Times, Ward, Revkin, Flannery, Nuccitelli, Goldenberg. Wonder which way the article would lean?

      And, just to make sure, it also links to the faked Heartland documents, references the wholly discredited Cook 97% paper, and the equally discredited and barmy Lew “Conspiracy Theory” papers.

      And of course, with the beautiful irony of the self-unaware, it then prattles on about how the whole “denial” thing is a conspiracy by the ever-shadowy Koch Brothers, Big Oil and Big Industry,”free market think tanks”, “secret funding networks” and so on.

      Frankly, the article is nothing but a wide-eyed one-track teenage political diatribe by someone with a very specific point in mind, some very specific targets and a set of references so tenuous that they could have been picked from Ma’s cherry tree. As an “explanation” of anything, it’s up there with geocentricity.

      But it does demonstrate with 100% accuracy the problem of using Wikipedia as a reference for anything other than where to get a laugh.

    • Any fixes done on wiki are reversed by the nutzo propagandists, then labeled as vandalism, and followed up with snide remarks, endless links to policies, and further obfuscations, erased talk page contribution,s eventually blocking the editors. So, since wiki is such a distorted error ridden mess, you fix it. Otherwise it remains an incredible and potentially libelous heap of propaganda.

    • Aye, aye, Cap’n. Is this a Bligh kinda day for you or are you Ahab up in arms?
      ===================

    • “So fix it” Why, so YOU and your fellow fanatics can just immediately “revert” it to your fraudulent storyline?

      Some of us here believe in science done by the Scientific Method. All you fanatics have is your phony “climate science” with secret data and secret methods.

      Ref: “Yamal”, “Hide the Decline”, FTP directories labeled “CENSORED”, 28Gate, Gleickgate, etc. etc. etc…

  82. I’ve long noticed that pages often get completely rewritten overnight. I used to check the term “fascism” over at Wikipedia, every few days or so. It was getting wholly rewritten all the time, and it was always a bunch of wacko academic self-indulgent blather that held no meaning whatsoever. Wikipedia is AWESOME for finding out about songs on a record album, members in a rock band, dates for the holidays, guys who played football. As an academic/educational tool – it is an outright absurdity. Pretty much anyone who cites Wikipedia as a source is ridiculed and trolled mercilessly. I wouldn’t worry too much if Wikipedia slanders you. I’d wear it as a badge of honor. It means you’re having an impact and the foolies that run that junk shop are in a hissy. Just grin and enjoy their grade school antics. Keep up the hard work, Anthony!

    • To my knowledge, there isn’t a single university in the world that allows Wikipedia to be cited as a source for anything. Academics rightly have zero respect for Wikipedia.

      • Nor any other encyclopedia. It is misleading to say academics have no respect for Wikipedia, in fact, they understand it is a tertiary reference, and not an acceptable source for citation. They are correct (with some rare exceptions), but the prohibition applies to all encyclopedias.

  83. Whats Up With That is clearly opposed to William Connolley’s past efforts on Wikipedia and comments. The fact that he is still able to post comments here speaks volumes about the objectivity and civility found at this blog.

    • Yup. The nutzo editors at wiki will erase stuff, even in the talk pages, because they don’t really want to talk about anything that they disagree with. Here? We can disagree, the hallmark of scientific advancement. Anthony Watts, despite all the criticism, remains, the better scientist.

      • @Paul Westhaver
        You say: “Anthony Watts, despite all the criticism, remains, the better scientist.”

        In a new paper, Watts concludes “reported 1979-2008 U.S. temperature trends are spuriously doubled”.
        In reaching this conclusion, Watts relies on the difference between the NCDC homogenized data (adjusted to remove non-climate influences) and the raw data as calculated by Watts et al. The conclusion therefore relies on an assumption that the NCDC adjustments are not physically warranted. They do not demonstrate this in the paper. They also do not demonstrate that their own ‘raw’ trends are homogeneous.

        If Watts corrects this seemingly fundamental flaw before publication, hopefully he can live up to the reputation you claim for him.

      • I am certain that since Anthony Watts does not engage in “talk page” erasures at WUWT, that he allows the free exchange of ideas and argument, two things that is NOT practiced on wikipedia, even when deciding on what ought to be published, that he is the better scientist. Your anteing up that you have a problem with specifics of the content of his work is quite a departure from my fundamental point, that he is the better scientist for at least allowing a discussion.

        When wiki stops erasing talk subjects, bullying of those who descent, which is what I asserted and you ignored, then I will take your criticism of Anthony Watts as sincere. For now I take it is wiki-esque obfuscation, smoke and mirrors, disingenuous babble. Which it is.

        Anthony is the better scientist because he allows a range of POVs on this site. Why don’t you start there? Since wiki is populated by like minded Procrusteans demagogues, I doubt anything will ever change.

      • @Paul Westhaver

        You claim that allowing dissenting views on his website makes Anthony ‘a good scientist?’ I would think other abilities are far better qualifiers –e.g., physics, math, chemistry, scientific method, diligence in following the evidence and data wherever it leads —- and so on.

      • Nope. I said that allowing discussion makes him a “better scientist”. B.E.T.T.E.R. Like in the comment at 10:57 am. Scroooollll up and read it. It has words…. that you cannot erase…. like at wiki. Then I said it again “better scientist” again at 11:32 am.

        He is a better scientist than the likes of WC et al who engage in propaganda, libelous miscaricatures, and erasing of discussion. Stop attempting to misdirect my comments into areas that I have not ventured. I know the wiki obfuscation is a bad habit and hard to break. Maybe you ought to re-read what I said and refresh your short-term memory.

        Now if you have something to say that is derogatory to Anthony, make your own comment and deal with the consequences.

        Anthony is the BETTER SCIENTIST (6th time) than the propagandists at wiki for the simple reasons that he allows a diversity of informed opinion and does not erase “talk page” -like discussions.

        Now if you can’t absorb that without saying that I said something different while throwing barbs at A Watts then your motives are betrayed by your wiki-esque, obstinate, hostile, obfuscating babble-flab, which can plainly be recognized. Good day.

      • @Paul Westhaver

        You say: “Anthony is the BETTER SCIENTIST (6th time) than the propagandists at wiki for the simple reasons that he allows a diversity of informed opinion and does not erase “talk page” -like discussions.”

        Ok. I say : “The ‘simple reason he allows a diversity of informed opinion and does not erase….etc’, makes him a better website owner and moderator, but has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not he is a better scientist. Those factors have to do with his abilities in Physics, math, chemistry, i.e., the SCIENCES.

        Seems pretty straightforward.

      • warrenlb,

        Based on everything you’ve written, you are no scientist at all.

        You are a closed-minded ideologue.

        Seems pretty straightforward.

      • warrenlb

        The scientific method, devised and first expressed by Roger Bacon in Opus Majus ~1267 said nothing of “science” nor any of the disciplines of modern science. The scientific method, is an organized method of reasoning to study a problem of any sort. It is not preserved by any particular discipline or group of modern science. It is a method.

        What a shallow person you must be to think that science is only what your narrow attention starved mind is capable of comprehending. You don’t even know what the idea of science is.

      • @Paul Westhaver

        You said (repeating) : “Anthony is the BETTER SCIENTIST (6th time) than the propagandists at wiki for the simple reasons that he allows a diversity of informed opinion and does not erase “talk page” -like discussions.”

        So you insist on a qualification for ‘better scientist’, except that you ridicule ‘good at the sciences’ and substitute ‘good at running a website’ as that qualification.

        A truly revealing set of priorities for ‘Better Scientist’

      • warrenlb, now the stoopid warrenlb,

        Anthony Watts is the BETTER SCIENTIST because he clearly abides by the principles of the Scientific Method, the organized and honest method to tackle any problem, by inviting and conducting honest intellectual discovery and discussion, unlike the monolithic dullards that populate the wiki community and enforce conformity by erasing “talk pages”, dispensing fact-less propaganda and libel. He is a Better Scientist because he indeed operates the most popular science blog on the earth as well as conducting his professional affairs following the idea of the scientific method. Furthermore the popularity of his science blog WUWT is popular amongst scientist for the simple reason that he promote free discussion, and open debate. Stooopid you are so witless that you don’t know what science is, nor do you acknowledge the obvious failings of the trash heap of wikipedia and their censoring, erasures and stifling of open discussion.

        Anyway you try to slice it, you just get lamer and recalcitrantly obstinate at being a witless fool.

        So even by your attempts at criticizing Mr Watts you service a compliment to him as a BETTER SCIENTIST. What a putz you are. Come on putz… let me make more of monkey out of you…I’ll turn the handle of my verbal hurdy-gurdy and you do your hate-Watts monkey dance…and lumber around with a tin cup looking for praise. LOL Be my monkey!

      • @warrenlb 11:10 am
        The conclusion therefore relies on an assumption that the NCDC adjustments are not physically warranted.

        It is not the assumption. It is the reasonable conclusion
        The Assumption is that the homogenization should not change the temperature readings by siting class.

        The Assumption is that Class 1 siting thermometers should have on balance more trustworthy reading than Class 5. That Class 1 and Class 5 yield different trends confirms that Class matters. And while it doesn’t prove Class 1 is better than Class 5, it is still a physically reasonable assumption.

        But the analysis shows that NCDC homogenization adjusts Class 1 stations to resemble Class 5 rather than the reverse. Therefore, through that chain of assumptions and analysis, one can properly concludes that there is something systematically wrong with NCDS adjustments and are therefore not physically warranted.

      • I have spent hours reading ongoing debates on this blog, and over numerous years. People are allowed to freely hash the stuff out, and it can certainly turn acerbic even to the point of nastiness. But that’s how people are. The monitors are fairly quick to snip out the outright attacks and off topic nonsense that arises. If you find yourself outnumbered here, understand that it’s the rules of the game. If you’re debating the majority, you are going to feel outnumbered and shut down. But you shouldn’t. That’s when you double down and become increasing kind and friendly. Then, people still might not agree with you, but you can force people to treat you with dignity – if you show it to them in spades from the start. And there are a few regular jerks on WUWT, but you can choose to ignore them. That’s the best medicine for jerks. Ignore them.

      • Thanks, Gary. Good advice.
        With your caveat, I withdraw the characterization of incivility.

      • Funny how the guy who makes a habit of insulting anyone who disagrees with his religion gets so upset about other people’s “incivility”.

  84. Wikipedia is a “majority rules” leftist-biased database that only lazy people would use for research, or to study a subject of interest.
    .
    Many years ago I noticed a very misleading article on “audiophiles”. As an audiophile since the 1960s, I decided to sign up and correct the errors and misleading statements.
    .
    My corrections were overruled by the “mob” by the next day, and I stopped trying to share my knowledge.
    .
    I also stopped looking at Wikipedia.
    .
    Wikipedia is so bad that even if you look up something completely non-political, like the old Leave it to Beaver TV show, you will still see political statements in the description of a fictional TV show (based on what I read many years ago)!
    .
    LEFTISTS ARE ALWAYS ON THE (CHARACTER) ATTACK — if you have high blood pressure, or don’t want to get high blood pressure, stay away from making changes to Wikipedia — it will be a waste of time quickly overrules by the leftists ‘thought police’ … and of course never use Wikipedia for information.
    .
    If you have spare time, how about telling someone you know Earth’s climate has been changing for 4.5 billion years, and a +1 degree F. warming in the past 100 years (+/- one degree) is perfectly normal.
    .
    Tell them 47 of the 48 contiguous US states had their warmest years on record before the year 2000.
    .
    Tell them scaring people about global warming is a political trick used by central governments to seize more power over the economy.
    .
    Tell them computer games can’t predict the climate in 100 years, or in one year.
    .
    Much more productive than wasting time on Wikipedia !

    • I agree with you, but with one caveat. It’s not always leftists who create mischief at Wikipedia. Sometimes it’s just pure idiocy at work, and other times there are right-wingers who do it. The site is also chock full of thinly-veiled advertising, and ax grinding that is more personal than ideological. That said, Wikipedia is a time wasting, unreliable horror show.

  85. I’d get involved, except that I long ago swore off trying to edit anything on Wikipedia. The site is fine for uncontroversial material, but the minute there’s any dispute it becomes a horror story. The issue is that Wikipedia explicitly does not recognize the existence of fact, or the pursuit of truth. Therefore, the material on the site is only what a group of its “editors” agrees on, without regard to its factuality.

    Three-quarters of Wikipedia’s “editors” and “administrators” are under 25 years old, and most of those are under 18 years old. Very few of them have even the slightest bit of knowledge of the subjects whose entries they edit. In essence, Wikipedia is high school in print. If you want to know the population of Chicago or the land area of Uzbekistan, no problem. But if there are any controversies involved, forget it.

    Oh, one other thing. Wikipedia’s “editors” and “administrators” will ban people for breaking this or that rule (there are a zillion of them there, many being directly contradictory), but they routinely ignore their own rules themselves. Wikipedia is a snakepit to be avoided.

  86. Sorry – by editing or even visiting a page, you are lending credibility to a site which should have none.

  87. I hadn’t bothered using Wiki for the better part of a decade, for reasons covered in many previous postings here. Then a few weeks ago I was editing an article that contained a Wiki link, to a bio of Jacob Devers. So I took a look at it.

    Now, Jacob Devers — a US Army general in WW II — is known for a series of events in 1944 — a dramatic advance up the Rhone Valley against severe odds, taming the Free French Army, which was engaged in what amounted to a civil war, and planning an advance into Germany that might have ended the war in weeks but which was cancelled by Ike without explanation hours before kickoff. All this between August and December 1944.

    The problem? The Wiki entry ends in 1943.

    The casual reader would come away believing that Devers was a mediocrity, a military bureaucrat with nothing of importance in his record, rather than a major figure in the defeat of the Third Reich.

    So it ain’t just climate studies — it’s everything. Wiki has not improved in the past ten years, and is not likely to improve. It is a useless site based on bogus premises and operated by corrupt means. Editing or consensus-building as regards to Wiki is a complete waste of time. It cannot be rectified, and the sole acceptable response is to disclaim it under all circumstances.

    • I got involved in editing a WWII thread. A good example of non-ideological hijinks. A few “editors” and “administrators” made it crystal clear that they’d pull out all the stops to prevent any changes whatsoever, no matter how well sourced. That’s when I gave up.

  88. After all these instances of Wikipedia being polluted by ignorant, political editors, chumps like Connolley keep trying to pretend it’s worthwhile. It’s not.

    Wikipedia is just a huge screed of leftist politics. That makes it completely worthless for anything related to climate science. There are plenty of alternatives, including WUWT.

    Dump Wikipedia. You will be better off.

  89. Interesting stance for those running wikipeida. Personally it is the C in cagw I am skeptical of. Looking at past data Id conclude a warmer world is calmer not more extreme. It is the RATE of change we were supposed to fear, which we have NO data whatsover to conclude any rates of change are past natural variability, nor does climate sensitivity look to be anywhere close to what the IPCC itself implies is the dangerous end of the ranges given.

    All that said, I read from several sources on this topic and of those I go to this is the ONLY source that I personally use that covered such published works as a NASA paper showing the deep ocean is stable in temp and not enough warming in the ocean overall to account for missing heat, another group who argued for slight cooling there, papers on warming tundra soils NOT leading to released methane, papers on arctic lakes actually soaking up MORE not releasing more and a myriad of other topics covered here from published work that many sources simply IGNORE. Ive literally quoted WUWT, was told it was a bad source so I would use the cited papers instead, and get people responding with things like… Wow, weird I hadnt seen this work, which makes me question its validity, where did you find it? Indication that others who follow the topic but refuse to look at this source just wont see many published works with in convenient data… Acting like THIS source is the biased one… well it is a sad day for science. Even if everyone here was dead wrong, published works ignored on related sites can be discussed here. Anthony and the others who do the work making this place run should be PROUD.

  90. There is a marvelous irony working, here. The nature of William Connolley’s work on Wikipedia can only be given sufficient credit by the skeptical side. It must always appear invisible to the consensus. Poor ol’ doomed ferret.
    ===============

    • Hero to the alarmist cognoscenti, traitor to the masses seeking a dialogue with truth.
      ==========================

  91. > William Connolley says that WUWT is “a blog dedicated to climate change denial”.

    I didn’t write that. In fact, searching, I can’t find myself saying anything similar; though I don’t rule it out as a possibility. I have called you lot incompetent, of course (e.g. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/10/04/wuwt-taking-incompetence-to-a-whole-new-level/).

    > Yet when I try to comment on alarmist blogs, most often my posts never see the light of day.

    I’m dubious you have ever made such an attempt. Remember above, where you said “I would love to ask the person who re-edited that entry”, and when I pointed out that you could indeed ask that person, you ran away? You’ve never tried to comment on my blog. and unlike a number of people (including me) who have had comments refused at WUWT, you’ve not actually said what blog, and what comment, of yours was refused.

    > you’re saying that scientific skeptics take the position that the climate never changes.

    Err, no. I’m not.

    > Of course, that is a lie.

    It would be a lie, if anyone ever said it. But since no-one ever says it, its not a lie. Its a little shell, a semantic trick, that you’ve constructed for yourself. Over here, in the walled garden, with no-one to challenge you, it sounds really good; maybe. Out in the real world it just sounds stupid.

    • WC says:
      > William Connolley says that WUWT is “a blog dedicated to climate change denial”.
      “I didn’t write that.”
      ——————-
      To whom are you addressing your remarks? Was that something said in the comments?. The article certainly doesn’t say that “William Connolley says…”

    • Connolley says:

      Remember above, where you said “I would love to ask the person who re-edited that entry”, and when I pointed out that you could indeed ask that person, you ran away? You’ve never tried to comment on my blog.

      “Ran away”? I just noticed this comment, and I am responding. Anyone the least bit familiar with my persona knows that I don’t run away from anything.

      I’ve tried to post changes on Wikipedia, but they were never published. The same thing happened when I tried to post a chart of global temperatures on Scientific American. I know what’s happening. It’s the same thing that happened in Germany in the 1930’s. History repeats.

      As for commenting on Connolley’s blog, no thanks. I care about the people I associate with. That’s why I comment here, and not there.

  92. WMC> Happily, there’s an article on that which will explain it for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial

    takebackthegreen> No, no no. You can’t change the meaning of words

    Well, firstly, I didn’t write that. But secondly, no, *you* don’t get to define things using your own pet meaning and then insist that all other meanings are wrong. Your own pet meaning “someone who denies climate change” is a useless phrase, because it describes no-one; as we all know, everyone accepts that the climate changes.

    thomam> It’s apparently supported by a huge raft of references to make it look authoritative. Only…

    So you’re sad about the references used. Can you propose any other ones that should be used? Anything that would constitute a reliable source? Blogs are no good; you need responsible newspapers. “you people” are rather reluctant to use, or discuss, the D-word; so its not surprising that sources on “your side” are in short supply. Perhaps you should try talking about it?

    • William’s real life has been saying No, No, No, No, No a wearisomely number of times a day, for a wearisomely number of days, and now he wants to expound on ‘denial’.

      Keep it real, there William. I’m all ears.
      ==============

      • Heh, I was making a different point about denial than he was. He was sparring with butterflies, I meant to sting.
        ======================

    • WC says: “you people” are rather reluctant to use, or discuss, the D-word; so its not surprising that sources on “your side” are in short supply. Perhaps you should try talking about it?”
      ———————
      We reject out of hand your use and defense of the term. We recognize that the employment of the term is ultimately, an action in support of tyranny.

      Ps We are, in fact, talking about it, despite your “little shell, a semantic trick, that you’ve constructed for yourself. “ in pretense that we are not thus engaged.

    • The conman cite Wikipedia! How convenient.

      How about this: Connolley is a total denialist. He agrees with that other denier Michael Mann, who has consistently denied the MWP and the LIA. Deniers, both of them.

    • @ William Connolley

      So you’re sad about the references used. Can you propose any other ones that should be used? Anything that would constitute a reliable source?

      A “reliable source” is any source that contains non-abstract actual, factual science and/or mathematics, …. confirmed and/or substantiated proofs or evidence ….. and/or common sense thinking, logical reasoning and/or intelligent deductions that confirm or justify one’s commentary.

      “Original thought” or “original thinking” on subject matter associated with the science of the natural world is not restricted to the pre-approved Degree holding associates or subservients of the self-appointed “peer-approval” resident members of Academia and/or their minions.

      Blogs are no good; you need responsible newspapers. “you people” are rather reluctant to use, or discuss, the D-word; so its not surprising that sources on “your side” are in short supply. Perhaps you should try talking about it?

      Given the above, me thinks you are a tad irrational or delusional in your thoughts, thinking and/or beliefs that the cited “source” (blog, newspaper, news media, organization, political party, etc. [the messenger]) of the cited data/information is far, far more important than the content/context of said data/information [the message]

      The science of the natural world exhibits no favoritism …….. and neither does a real scientist.

    • What utter tosh …

      The phrase:

      Climate Change Denial

      is completely unambiguous. And you correctly note, that it “[describes] no one”.

      It seems that you take this (correct) observation as an excuse to attach all kinds of other meanings to that phrase, not contained therein(*). Rationalizing this because similar idiotic attempts have been made by other (similarily) challenged people.For instance one who claims:

      “you need responsible newspapers”

      .. to demonstrate that this phrase does not mean what it never meant!? Because a bunch of lefty loons still would lie it to mean [something] entirely different!?

      As I said: What utter tosh!

      But it’s good to see it demonstrated, even spelled out so glaringly obvious.

      (*) Most of time, the attempts to give it [completely] other ‘meaning’s are equally stupid. See eg thomam’s comment above

  93. The school district my kids are in doesn’t accept references from any of the wikis. What we end up doing is to look at a wikipedia entry for more authoritative links and to get ideas for other searches.

    • Not bad. But always keep in mind the citations and links they choose to delete and keep hidden. What is discarded may be worthless, but there can be great value in what is discarded, too.

      I am reminded that the town of Leadville, Colorado got it’s name from gold prospectors who were disappointed in the lead-like minerals they found instead of the gold they sought. They were unable to recognize the value in the high-grade silver ore that stared up from them in their pans. Leadville is still the home of a world class molybdenum mine.

  94. If Wikipedia ever wants to gain credibility, it has a very easy path. All it needs to do is to acknowledge its problem of fanatics, activists and concentrated interests acting as gatekeepers, and set up their system to respond. To wit, controversial topics should have a separate treatment, in which a bifurcated path provides a place for both protagonists and antagonists. Once a topic joins the controversy category, the system would enforce hard and fast rules that ban any editor that tries to edit in both pro and anti realms. Perhaps editors could vote only to move new contributions from one section to the other, and not be allowed to delete. If a contribution was moved once, and the other side didn’t want it, only then does it get deleted. Perhaps a vote from editors on each side could limit into which bucket other editors were permitted to act. You could be rejected as an editor for one side, restricting you to the other. If rejected from both sides, you lose all editing privileges. The pro side would get top billing. And as a matter of good manners and fairness, subjects with a principle player or identity would always would be required to give a spot at the top of the topic for that voice, which could never be rejected by any editor. For example, in the page for WUWT, Anthony should always have a inviolable slot to post his opinion, response, whatever.

    To combat the problem of anonymity and flooding by one side on any controversy, an automatic metric system could watch for roll-back and gate-keeping activity. And this metric could also trigger shifts of non-controversial topics to the controversy bucket. Such monitoring could automatically ban people after one warning and a second occurrence. Under such a system, William Connelly types would be forced to restrain his activity to one side, or be flatly excluded from editing away the opposing side’s opinions and contradictory science.

    If we had such a wikipedia, a third section might even evolve in controversial topics, in which fair minded analysts could aggregate content with which both sides agree.

      • Heh, ‘successful’. So speaks the censor for its least credible branch. Congratulations on your contribution to the success and we’ll follow your future career with great interest.
        ==============

      • Looks like Kim has already touched on this, but I want to reiterate her thought. “Success?” By whose definition? By yours, not mine. I’ve looked through wikimedia’s forking policies (good name for them if you say it fast) and they are hopelessly naive as they pertain to forcing consensus and purely “neutral” Points of Views. There are no such things in controversy as a neutral or consensus POV. Everyone has a point of view, and to say only ONE can be represented under any topic leaves the field to you fanatics and dogmatists who are either willfully oppressive or too self-unaware to understand that you’re fanatics and dogmatists.

    • Mickey,

      If they did that, they wouldn’t be the propaganda outlet they are now. They have zero interest in giving that up.

      It would be like firing that execrable toad willy conman. Won’t happen.

    • Therefore wikipedia has a terminal flaw. So, better to spend ones time elsewhere and leave wiki to the obsessed nut-jobs who comprise it. It is, and will remain, a repository of extremist opinions….a cult.

      • Sez you. But our host disagrees, because he’s asking people to edit the article (note that he’s wrong about the COI rules not permitting to do that himself; they aren’t so strict. and of course, COI doesn’t prevent him joining in on the talk page; only Fear does that).

    • I love it when people propose easy solutions, as if no one has ever thought of them, and they simply need to carry out an easy task. (And I say this knowing I have been guilty.) As William Connolley already pointed out, the concept is known, and has been discussed in depth. It is not as “easy” as you suggest.

      • Don’t put words in my mouth, Phil, or I’ll expose all your wife-beating and dog-fighting activities. /SARC I never said that no one hadn’t thought of this stuff before. If you want to know, I expect LOTS of people have tried to get wikipedia to operate this way, and have failed. I’m only telling them (and by extension, its fanatical gate-keepers) why I consider wikipedia content in political and controversial areas to be worthless propaganda. I’m only describing the bare minimum they must do if they ever want me to respect their content. As for how difficult it would be to put some programming tools together to help flag and enforce a forked tree of content and to enforce editing privileges thereof, please spare me your headaches. You apparently don’t have enough imagination to judge such things.

      • I’m quite sure you used the word “easy”, so I’m not sure what words I put in your mouth. The technical aspects of forking are not hard. It has been done. You haven’t thought through follow on challenges.

        You might also look up the words sarcasm. Alleging I’m involved in dog fighting is not sarcasm.

    • Forget about adding a new set of rules to Wikipedia. They don’t even follow the ones that already have. ~~~~

  95. I was over at the WattsUpWithThat Wikipedia page.
    I noticed that the removal of the

    The neutrality of this article is disputed. Relevant discussion may be found on the talk page. Please do not remove this message until the dispute is resolved. (May 2015)

    Furthermore, the first paragraph: remains until unlocked on June 8:

    Watts Up With That? (or WUWT) is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial[a] created in 2006 by Anthony Watts.[1][2] The tagline of the blog is “News and commentary on puzzling things in life, nature, science, weather, climate change, technology, and recent news.”[3] [emphasis mine]

    Wow. The Neutrality dispute tag was remove (implying dispute is resolved), and that abysmally inaccurate first paragraph remains in place.

    It is my understanding that the tagline of the blog is now: “The world’s most views site on Global Warming and Climate Change.” Buried deep down in the WUWT About page, you will still find the older tag line: “News and commentary….. “. So the “tagline” sentence looks to me to be out of date.

    The word “dedicated” is factually inaccurate, not present anywhere on the about page. The word can only be the opinion of others, a non-neutral point of view. That such a non-neutral POV word exists on the first line and the non-neutral warning tag is removed is prima-facie evidence of how bad the editorial balance exists at Wikipedia.

    So I went to the Talk pages. There is much talk. I didn’t find the specific part about the removal of the point of view alert. But I noticed that the editors Jess and Guy didn’t seen as neutral to the subject as they needed to be. Just my opinion of course. But I went to Guy’s (a.k.a. JzG, vGuyUK on Twitter | SceptiGuy on Twitter ) Talk home page. and found this about his opinion of WUWT content on Wikipedia:

    WUWT edit[edit]

    Re this edit There’s no evidence that skepticism is “widely characterised as ((climate change denial))” In the talk section, there is one source which makes this claim, but one source does not in any way translate into “widely”. Please self-revert.–S Philbrick(Talk) 18:58, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

    By the way, is it now considered acceptable for an established editor, which zero edits to an article, to jump in an make a contentious edit while an edit war is in progress, without even attempting to see if there is consensus? You are simply fueling the fire, not helping to solve the problem. If you want to make an NPOV edit while the debate is in progress, why not remove both skepticism and denialism, leaving it described neutrally as a blog dedicated to climate issues, and the editors can then work to a consensus about what the reliable sources say?–S Philbrick(Talk) 19:03, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

    Sphilbrick, perhaps you’re misreading the edited text, which says that WUWT promotes a ” ‘skeptical view’ of climate change, widely characterised as climate change denial: the sources already cited support that statement. Neutrality, in particular weight and WP:PSCI, requires that we show what these reliable sources say. Your proposal violates policy. . dave souza, talk 20:37, 27

    May 2015 (UTC)There is no evidence that climate “skepticism” is legitimate skepticism. We bend over so far backwards to pander to these idiots that if we’re not careful we will end up with our heads up our own arses. Wikipedia is a reality-based encyclopaedia, we are not here to pretend that shills for big oil and the useful idiots who enable them, are a legitimate part of scientific debate. The scientific debate is in the published literature, and the consensus is robust: the “skeptics” are in denial about this, we should and must call it what it is. And yes, long-term editors are allowed to come to articles with entrenched opinions and try to break the deadlock. In fact, it’s encouraged, especially where there is a hard core of editors promoting fringe views. Guy (Help!) 22:06, 27 May 2015 (UTC)

    Breathtaking, isn’t it?

    • Let’s dissect those references to “is a blog dedicated to climate change skepticism or denial[a]”
      [a] = Sources include:[2][1][34][35][36]

      [1] ^[a b] Mann, Michael (1 October 2013). The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. Columbia University Press. pp. 27, 72, 222. “Since then, a number of other amateur climate change denial bloggers have arrived on the scene. Most prominent among them is Anthony Watts, a meteorologist…and founder of the site “Watts Up with That?” which has overtaken climate audit as the leading climate change denial blog.”

      [2].^[a b] John Grant (2011). Denying Science: Conspiracy Theories, Media Distortions, and the War Against Reality . Prometheus Books. ISBN 1616144009. Retrieved May 2015. “* The blog Watts Up With That? is a notorious hotbed of irrational AGW denialism” “the massively trafficked denialist site Watts Up With That”
      “Watts is best known for his very heavily trafficked blog Watts Up With That?, began in 2006, which provides not just a megaphone for himself but a rallying ground for other AGW deniers.”

      [34].Manne, Robert (August 2012). “A dark victory: How vested interests defeated climate science”. The Monthly: 22–29. “More importantly, it was becoming clear that the most effective denialist media weapon was not the newspapers or television but the internet. A number of influential websites, like Watts Up With That?, Climate Skeptic and Climate Depot, were established.”

      [35].Dunlap, Riley E.; McCright, Aaron M. (2011). Dryzek, John S.; Norgaard, Richard B.; Schlosberg, David, eds. The Oxford Handbook of Climate Change and Society. Oxford University Press. p. 153. ISBN 0199566607. “In recent years these conservative media outlets have been supplemented (and to some degree supplanted) by the conservative blogosphere, and numerous blogs now constitute a vital element of the denial machine…the most popular North American blogs are run by a retired TV meteorologist (wattsupwiththat.com)…Having this powerful, pervasive, and multifaceted media apparatus at its service provides the denial machine with a highly effective means of spreading its message.”

      [36].Farmer, G. Thomas; Cook, John (2013). Climate Change Science: A Modern Synthesis: Volume 1-The Physical Climate. Springer Science & Business Media. “One of the highest trafficked climate blogs is wattsupwiththat.com, a website that publishes climate misinformation on a daily basis.”

    • Very quaint.

      I’ve long been amused by ‘reality-based’. It is used so pretentiously.
      =============

  96. One of two editorial caution tags on the WUWT Wikipedia page.

    This article relies too much on references to primary sources. Please improve this article by adding secondary or tertiary sources. (May 2015)

    Too many references to primary sources.
    Improve it by adding secondary sources.

    I understand the need to remove original work in a Wikipedia entry. But what are they getting at here?

    Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Secondary or tertiary sources are needed to establish the topic’s notability and to avoid novel interpretations of primary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than to an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors…..

    Primary sources are original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider’s view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on….

    Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge…..

    A secondary source provides an author’s own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author’s interpretation, analysis, or evaluation of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources

    I can only read this one way:
    Editor Z should prefer a reference to what Y1 wrote about what X wrote
    over a reference to what X actually wrote.
    What Y2, Y3, Y4 wrote about X is fair game to not reference and or delete.

    This is “Through the Looking Glass” in 1984 stuff. A literal distortion of reality where left is right, what is visible is obscured, and “ignorance is strength.”

    All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources …
    “All”?? They can’t be serious. It is not practical to cite all peoples interpretation of Lincoln’s Gettysburg address. Therefore, their must be some judgment subject to point of view in what is selected. Surely the primary reference (Library of Congress, for one) to the actual text of the Address is more important than any secondary reference about it.

    • Stephen, you said you could “only read this one way”. However, you misunderstood the point (which may mean the original needs tweaking.)

      To illustrate with your point about the Gettysburg Address, it is quite acceptable to cite published opinions about the speech, what is disallowed is a Wikipedia editor adding their own personal “interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims”.

      If X wrote a scholarly paper about the Gettysburg Address, then that is a secondary source. If editor Z thinks they’ve dreamed up an interesting interpretation of the Address, we’d like them to keep that out of Wikipedia.

      • Wikipedia says they prefer secondary sources over primary sources, do they not? That is the fault.

        Wikipedia’s policy is properly to prevent editors from inserting in their own original work as opinion about a subject. So far so good. The point of the secondary source need is for editors to need a secondary source to prove that a subject is worth covering. No secondary sources? Then the subject doesn’t belong on Wikipedia. Also, so far so good.

        But the policy, AS WRITTEN,

        Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources.

        to prefer secondary sources over primary ones means the editor is allowed to selectively choose biased secondary sources that agree with his own opinions.

        In what other way can Michael Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines. be the first citation on a page about “WattsUpWithThat?”

        This is wrong, wrong, wrong. The Wikipedia editors of the WUWT are guilty, guilty, guilty of bias, bias, bias.

        The first reference of any website ought to be the About Page of that website. List Primary references FIRST, ahead of secondary references. And mark them as Primary, Secondary, Tertiary as related to the subject of the page.

      • If X [Y1] wrote a scholarly paper about the Gettysburg Address [written by X], then that is a secondary source. If editor Z thinks [Y1] dreamed up an interesting interpretation of the Address, we’d like them to keep that out of Wikipedia.

        I agree. And that is consistent with what I wrote.
        But what is written describing Wikipedia policy is what Y1, or Y2, Y3, Y4 wrote about the Gettysburg address is preferred over the primary source.

        Secondary sources are needed to support that what X wrote is important enough to be covered by Wikipedia. But, under no circumstances should what Y1 wrote about X take priority over what X actually wrote that other readers can read for themselves.

        If Z feels Y1 is an interesting interpretation of X, it will likely and properly be included, especially if it is also supported by Y2 — even if it is disputed by Y3, Y4, Y5 which will be deleted — out of sight, out of mind. This precisely describes the current incarnation of the WUWT Wikipedia page.

        Here is the <href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F#NPOV_tag&quot; rel="nofollow">talk on NPOV from a Z, (i.e. an editor in good standing):

        The word warmists is the end of this conversation. It is a pejorative used by those who do not want to believe the science. The climate is changing, we are largely responsible, the science is absolutely clear and if anything understated via IPCC due to the political influence of deniers.
        This blog exists to undermine the science. You clearly don’t like either the science or the implications of the fact that this is a science and climate denial blog, which is your prerogative, but your views as stated are inconsistent with WP:V and WP:NPOV and we are entitled to discount them. Wikipedia reflects the world as it is, not as the Koch brothers would wish it to be. Guy (Help!) 08:20, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

        The lunatics are running the asylum.

    • It is fully protected, which is not quite the same as locked down. It can be edited by admins, although convention is that even these edits should be ones reached by a consensus discussion ont he talk page, rather than simply the whim of a passing admin.

      There is also a formal request for comment, looking for input from the broader community, on what words should be used to characterize the WUWT site.

      • There is also a formal request for comment,
        You mean this?

        you may submit an edit request to ask an administrator to make an edit if it is uncontroversial or supported by consensus.

        Fat chance of any request being accepted.

  97. No, an RfC is a very different animal than an edit request. The article is cirrently fully protected (scheduled to end 8 June IIRC). In such circumstances, if a non admin wants to make an edit, they make a request, and an admin will review it, and make it if warranted. I see one such request which was enacted. I do not see any rejected requests.

    Separately, when there are strong disputes about content, one can file a Request for Comment (short name – RfC) which invites editors, many who may not usually participate in the article, to weigh in on some dispute. Typically, an RfC runs for 30 days, is then closed by an experienced editor who is expected to enact the concensus of those participating.

    It is not uncommon that a dispute will lead to protection as well as an RfC, but they are different mechanisms.

    The RfC can be seen here:
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Watts_Up_With_That%3F#Request_for_Comments_.28RfC.29:_Denialism

    • Ah!… a “Formal Request for Comment” way down on point 19 of the Talk page….
      By that ever-so-objective editor Guy (help!). (see above) who proposes a choice of three solutions for the lede. Then voices his own opinion on the first entry.

      One of the replies:

      I could add to this, this rfc as presented has major problems with all three options.

      Option 1: “Omit all mention of the fact that this is described as a climate denialist blog.” Aside from inserting his own opinion in this option, this option is presented as an “all or none” choice for the entire article. The question is relating to the article’s lede, but this option is asking if we should remove all mention of word ‘denial’. The option could simply say; “Identify WUWT as a blog committed to climate change skepticism. Omit the word ‘denial’ from the article’s lede.”

      Option 2: “Use the self-identification, climate skeptic, but note the accusations of denialism, with attribution.” This option is vaguely worded and could be interpreted many different ways by the usual POV-pushers. What exact wording is being suggested? What is being presented as fact in the article’s lede? Does this mean clarify ‘denial’ as being used be Watts’ opponents? Does it mean clarify that ‘skepticism’ is a self-identification, or to present it as fact? I’m not sure how anyone voting for this option could possibly know what they are voting for.

      Option 3: “Go with denialist” Again, not sure what this means exactly. I guess it might mean state as fact in the lead that “WUWT is a blog dedicated to climate change denial”. Is so, it should be more clear.

      I suggest this rfc be rejected entirely and reworded by someone who understands the concept of neutrality. 24.9.166.120 (talk) 23:30, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

      Thanks for the education, The other Phil

  98. Of all the horrible things in Nineteen Eighty-Four that have come true in recent years—from rampant thought-policing to the spread of CCTV cameras—surely the memory hole, the institutionalisation of forgetting, will never make an appearance in our supposedly open, transparent young century? After all, ours is a “knowledge society,” where info is power and Googling is on pretty much every human’s list of favourite pastimes.

    Think again. The memory hole is already here. In Europe, anyway. We might not have actual holes into which pesky facts are dropped so that they can be burnt in “enormous furnaces.” But the EU-enforced “right to be forgotten” does empower individual citizens in Europe, with the connivance of Google, to behave like little O’Briens, wiping from internet search engines any fact they would rather no longer existed.

    -from
    Europe Goes Down the Memory Hole With the ‘Right to Be Forgotten’

    Nothing says “freedom” like forcing people to alter the historical record
    Brendan O’Neill | June 6, 2015
    Reason.com

    The article notes that the actual historical documents are unaltered (so far).
    It is your ability to FIND them that is altered.

    The article also make reference to the philosophical question, “proverbial falling tree that makes no noise because no one’s there to hear it. ” The life-long lesson I learned about this point came from a two-minute bit between Johnny Carson and Ed McMahon. A letter from a Cal Tech physics professor pointed out:

    the tree does not actually need to fall before this question must be faced. According to the theory of Quantum Mechanics, it is believed that the tree does not actually EXIST until someone SEES IT!

    From the Wikipedia NPOV
    All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without bias, ALL of the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. [emphasis mine]

    But what is clear from the May 2015 talk pages of the Watts Up With That article is that ideas and facts don’t survive the gate-keeping of biased Wikipedia editors with indelible points of view behaving like little O’Briens, wiping from internet search engines Wikipedia references any fact they would rather no longer existed.

Comments are closed.