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.
“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?
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.
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?
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’.
What is even scarier is that the liberal elitist want and are working on replacing college texts with the equivalent of Wikipedia textbooks.
Have you not heard of Wikibooks?
https://www.wikibooks.org/
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.
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.
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.
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.
> Wikipedia also blocks you if you use a VPN service for personal security
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Advice_to_users_using_Tor, perhaps.
The article continues to evolve. Now, “In the early months of 2010, it was suggested the site might be “the most read climate blog in the world,”[4] and is among the most influential in climate change denial blogs on the Internet.[5]”
“climate change denial ”
Care to explain that nonsensical phrase?
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.
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.
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.
Exactly why I completely ignore Wiki pleas for donation.
The bottom of this post…
https://climatesanity.wordpress.com/2010/01/09/no-wikipedia/
…has a “no Wikipedia” logo that I encourage people to use in their blogs, etc.
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.
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.
@dbstealey
It seems Wikipedia has a definition of Climate Change Denial that confirms mine, and expands on it quite nicely: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
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.
Scott,
What would you like to bet that it’s just a matter of time…
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.
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.
> 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.
True, Phil. I don’t care.
Yep, it’s through the looking glass. Enjoy the tea.
=============
> “climate change denial ” Care to explain that nonsensical phrase?
Happily, there’s an article on that which will explain it for you:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change_denial
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.
Steven Mosher> These idiots cant get the dates right.
So fix it, you lazy blighter. Don’t just stand on the sidelines whinging.
So fix the “climate change denial” nonsense, you lazy con man.
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…
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.
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.
Willingness to tolerate dissenting posts? Yes. Objectivity and civility? Hard to find.
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”.
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.
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.
Sorry – by editing or even visiting a page, you are lending credibility to a site which should have none.