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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
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?
Electric Universe doesn’t exist in Wiki world either, it’s been expunged along with articles on various people, many of whom have authored books and had papers published.
https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electric_Universe_%28physics%29&redirect=no
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Talbott
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pierre-Marie_Robitaille
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_J._Crothers
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.
In case anyone care, the deletion of the article about Stephen J. Crothers was not cavalier. Some may disagree with the reasoning, but it wasn’t a close call: see
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Stephen_J._Crothers
for the debate.
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.
Are you saying Kim Kardashian and Miss Piggy are not the same person?
Who knew?
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.
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.
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.”
Has anyone said the source of the problem is mysterious? Your summarization is spot-on, and well-recognized.
Even seemingly innocuous articles are completely bogus. For example, I am a lifelong British car enthusiast and have owned, driven or maintained most of Britian’s best. Almost every Wikipedia article on these classic vehicles is poorly researched and innaccurate, ofttimes substituting uninformed opinions for research which is childishly simple to perform in this domain.
You are welcome to improve those articles. I have no personal interest in cars, but I know editors who are very serious about it. I would be happy to put you in touch with them if you would like to help improve the coverage.
Aren’t those “editors” the ones who should be improving Wikipedia articles? Why not put them in touch with Wiki?
Personally, I won’t waste my time with a propaganda blog like Wikipedia, when some pimply kid still living at home has more time and ignorance available and can simply delete or change anything I might post.
Wikipedia is a lost cause. Anything outside of an esoteric subject like subatomic physics or mathematics will eventually get politics injected into it, and it is invariably the politics of truly despicable and wretched human beings like the odious William Connolley.
There are too many good things in life, and too many alternatives to waste time on something like that cesspool. Just type your search terms into your browser. You willl get pages and pages of other sources. Wikipedia will be only one of many, and you know before you click on it that Wikipedia is heavily biased and censored. Why would you want that?
I have soured on wikipedia in the past year, I used to give it a free pass for the usual reasons, I never expected perfection, only a balance set more toward honesty and integrity than spiteful agenda driven politics.
Nearly ever important subject which should require the most balanced presentation of viewpoints has been hijacked to only allow for but one often socially dominant theme. The Talk pages are cringe-worthy and intellectually disgraceful.
Pseudo-skeptics have taken Wikipedia over, unlike actual skeptics, these people are the stalwart defenders of maintaining the current paradigm. They arm themselves with the belief that all concepts challenging the consensus view must be labelled in some derogatory fashion as pseudo-science, denial-ism, or simply deleted outright. The worst of all circle-jerk echo chambers.
http://curatti.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/03/Echo-Chamber.jpg
Some of my favourite related links:
http://wikipediocracy.com/
http://wikipediawehaveaproblem.com/
http://www.technologyreview.com/review/411041/wikipedia-and-the-meaning-of-truth/
http://www.skepticalaboutskeptics.org/examining-skeptics/wikipedia-captured-by-skeptics/
http://www.sheldrake.org/about-rupert-sheldrake/blog/wikipedia-under-threat
http://www.slate.com/articles/technology/bitwise/2014/12/wikipedia_editing_disputes_the_crowdsourced_encyclopedia_has_become_a_rancorous.html
https://sites.google.com/site/cosmologyquest/the-editor-s-musings/scientific-censorship-of-wikipedia-magnetic-reconnection
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.
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.
warrenlb cites Wikipedia as his ‘authority’.
heh…
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.
In checking a fact, you shouldn’t rely on only one reference. I have a high-school teacher to thank for that basic wisdom.
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?
Since when has he hidden his identity? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/03/18/wuwt-milestone-1-million-comments/
Jimbo was the millionth? Where is Jimbo.
Jimbo always has the links.
Learn something new every day 😉
Kit Carruthers,
I post under my own name. Why does that bother you so much, when there are hundreds of others who use anonymous screen names?
The answer is simple: you cannot refute the facts I post, so your climbdown is to use ad hominem attacks like you did above.
If you can refute any evidence I cite, then do it. That will be a first.
Got me there, David. You’re far too smart for me – you’ve got all the answers!
He is and he does…………
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.
+1
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Sadly, Wikipedia has become a source of disinformation.
Become? That implies a point in time when it wasn’t.
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.
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.
Good point.
Well-said.
Yes
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.
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.
–typo/spelling/grammar alert–
Wikipedia has one major flaw in
it’sits design…That paragraph above should serve as
it’sits own entry in the Wikipedia citations for WUWT.its, hers, his, ours, theirs, yours
I never get that korrekt,.. Must have been a bad day in grade 6.
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
Steve
Why do you think mind Your Ps & Qs is an exception?
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
George’s opinion is the same, he tells me.
Auto
Steve, there are no exceptions. I am showing you how you should have written it.
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:
and
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/
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?)
Don’t worry too much Anthony and team. This will end up hurting them more than you.