Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. 25 Dec '09 20:28
    http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesdelingpole/100020515/climategate-the-corruption-of-wikipedia/

    Climategate: the corruption of Wikipedia

    By James Delingpole Politics Last updated: December 22nd, 2009

    If you want to know the truth about Climategate, definitely don’t use Wikipedia. “Climatic Research Unit e-mail controversy”, is its preferred, mealy-mouthed euphemism to describe the greatest scientific scandal of the modern age. Not that you’d ever guess it was a scandal from the accompanying article. It reads more like a damage-limitation press release put out by concerned friends and sympathisers of the lying, cheating, data-rigging scientists

    Which funnily enough, is pretty much what it is. Even Wikipedia’s own moderators acknowledge that the entry has been hijacked, as this commentary by an “uninvolved editor” makes clear.

    Unfortunately, this naked bias and corruption has infected the supposedly neutral Wikipedia’s entire coverage of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) theory. And much of this, as Lawrence Solomon reports in the National Post, is the work of one man, a Cambridge-based scientist and Green Party activist named William Connolley.

    Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. 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. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

    All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it — more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred — over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

    ...
  2. 25 Dec '09 20:28
    you heard it on RHP first! (like, a month or two ago.)
  3. 25 Dec '09 20:30
    ...

    Connolley has supposedly been defrocked as a Wikipedia administrator. Or so Wikipedia claimed in its feeble, there’s-really-not-much-we-can-do response to anxious questions from one of Watts Up With That’s readers.

    In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.

    If this is true, it doesn’t seem to have made much difference to his creative input on the Wikipedia’s entries. Here he is – unless its just someone with an identical name – busily sticking his oar in to entries on the Medieval Warm Period (again) and the deeply compromised, soon-to-be-leaving (let’s hope) IPCC head Dr Rajendra Pachauri. And here he is again just three days ago, removing a mention of Climategate from Michael Mann’s entry. And here is an example of one of his Wikipedia chums – name of Stephan Schulz – helping to cover up for him by ensuring that no mention of that embarrassing Lawrence Solomon article appears on Connolley’s Wikipedia entry. And here he is deleting criticism of himself.

    Connolley, it should also be noted, was one of the founder members of Real Climate – the friends-of-Michael-Mann propaganda outfit (aka “The Hockey Team&rdquo which, in the guise of disinterested science, pumps out climate-fear-promoting hysteria on AGW and tries to discredit anyone who disagrees with the ManBearPig “consensus”.

    Here he is, for example, being bigged up in a 2006 email from Michael Mann:

    >> I’ve attached the piece in word format. Hyperlinks are still there,
    >> but not clickable in word format. I’ve already given it a good
    >> go-over w/ Gavin, Stefan, and William Connelley (our internal “peer
    >> review” process at RC), so I think its in pretty good shape. Let me
    >> know if any comments…
    >>

    ...
  4. 25 Dec '09 20:38
    http://www.americanthinker.com/2009/12/a_climatology_conspiracy.html

    December 20, 2009
    A Climatology Conspiracy?
    By David H. Douglass and John R. Christy

    The CRU e-mails have revealed how the normal conventions of the peer review process appear to have been compromised by a team* of global warming scientists, with the willing cooperation of the editor of the International Journal of Climatology (IJC), Glenn McGregor. The team spent nearly a year preparing and publishing a paper that attempted to rebut a previously published paper in IJC by Douglass, Christy, Pearson, and Singer (DCPS). The DCPS paper, reviewed and accepted in the traditional manner, had shown that the IPCC models that predicted significant "global warming" in fact largely disagreed with the observational data.


    We will let the reader judge whether this team effort, revealed in dozens of e-mails and taking nearly a year, involves inappropriate behavior, including (a) unusual cooperation between authors and editor, (b) misstatement of known facts, (c) character assassination, (d) avoidance of traditional scientific give-and-take, (e) using confidential information, (f) misrepresentation (or misunderstanding) of the scientific question posed by DCPS, (g) withholding data, and more.


    *The team is a group of climate scientists who frequently collaborate and publish papers which often support the hypothesis of human-caused global warming. For this essay, the leading team members include Ben Santer, Phil Jones, Timothy Osborn, and Tom Wigley, with lesser roles for several others.
  5. 25 Dec '09 20:41
    In the global warming discusiion, I only have one first hand experience to report. It can be taken for what ever you'd like.
    Each summer, I spend living in my TiPi in the lower end of the Wind Rivers in Wyoming. I have climbed the area for years. The man who filmed the Movie Cliff hanger, went to climbing school there. ( david Breshears )
    Anyway, I am seeing glaciers coming back. I read a study on the Dinwoody glacier, as pertaining to water melt into the Wind River, which eventually ends up in the Missouri. The national Forest service reports the Glacier is growing, also tree ring growth appears to show a cooling. That's great news, because there are alot of lodge pole pine, which are not able to fight off the pine bark beetle. In normal seasons, when it gets cold, and there is water, these trees can sap out many intruders.
    I was pounded all summer by rain, and hail. I have a great picture of a hail storm in August.
    I do believe there is a problem with human pollution. I'm not saying there is not. But perhaps we should examine this, and not get 'snookered" in to a UN agreement. I will never trust the UN again, after the Oil for food thing in Iraq. will you?
  6. 25 Dec '09 20:51
    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/18/370719.aspx


    Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor
    Posted: December 19, 2009, 2:53 AM by NP Editor
    lawrence solomon, climate change, Wikipedia
    How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

    ....

    http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/12/23/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-hockey-stick-wars.aspx


    Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia's hockey stick wars
    Posted: December 23, 2009, 3:15 PM by NP Editor
    lawrence solomon, climate change, global warming, carbon, Wikipedia, Connolley, CO2, climate change scandal, global warming scandal, Medieval Warm Period, MWP, carbon dioxide, Climategate
    Since my Saturday column described how Wikipedia editors have been feverishly rewriting climate history over much of the decade, fair-minded Wikipedians have been doing their best to correct the record. No sooner than they remove gross distortions, however, than the distortions are replaced. William Connolley, a Climategate member and Wikipedia's chief climate change propagandist, remains as active as ever.


    How does Wikipedia work and how do Connolley and his co-conspirators exercise control? Take Wikipedia's page for Medieval Warm Period, as an example. In the three days following my column's appearance, this page alone was changed some 50 times in battles between Connolley's crew and those who want a fair presentation of history.

    ...
  7. 25 Dec '09 20:52
    Originally posted by Hugh Glass
    In the global warming discusiion, I only have one first hand experience to report. It can be taken for what ever you'd like.
    Each summer, I spend living in my TiPi in the lower end of the Wind Rivers in Wyoming. I have climbed the area for years. The man who filmed the Movie Cliff hanger, went to climbing school there. ( david Breshears )
    Anyway, I am s ...[text shortened]... agreement. I will never trust the UN again, after the Oil for food thing in Iraq. will you?
    i won't. but 45 trillion is probably a lot more than oil for food, plus oil for food was paid for by Iraq.
  8. 26 Dec '09 00:20
    Paid for by Iraq, to whom?
    It didn't go where it was suppose to go now, did it. As far as I have seen, which is about nothing, UN corruption sucked up that money.
    I'd like to ask that group, to move to another country, and let that country foot the bill for a new building.
  9. 26 Dec '09 02:26
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_for_food

    The Oil-for-Food Programme, established by the United Nations in 1995 (under UN Security Council Resolution 986)[1] and terminated in late 2003, was established with the stated intent to allow Iraq to sell oil on the world market in exchange for food, medicine, and other humanitarian needs for ordinary Iraqi citizens without allowing Iraq to rebuild its military.

    The programme was introduced by United States President Bill Clinton's administration in 1995, as a response to arguments that ordinary Iraqi citizens were inordinately affected by the international economic sanctions aimed at the demilitarisation of Saddam Hussein's Iraq, imposed in the wake of the first Gulf War. The sanctions were discontinued on November 21, 2003 after the U.S. invasion of Iraq, and the humanitarian functions turned over to the Coalition Provisional Authority. [1]

    As the programme ended, there were revelations of corruption involving the funds.
    Contents
    [hide]

    * 1 Background and design
    * 2 Financial statistics
    * 3 Initial support and criticism
    * 4 End of the programme
    * 5 Abuse
    o 5.1 al Mada list
    o 5.2 Operation of the scheme
    o 5.3 BNP
    o 5.4 Duelfer investigation
    o 5.5 Oil coupons as bribes
    o 5.6 Complaints by Kurds
    o 5.7 Potential Annan link
    o 5.8 Alleged involvement of Russian intelligence
    o 5.9 Allegedly used to finance Al-Qaeda
    o 5.10 Allegations against George Galloway
    o 5.11 Oil for wheat
    * 6 Investigations
    o 6.1 GAO investigation
    o 6.2 Independent Inquiry Committee
    + 6.2.1 Interim report results
    o 6.3 Investigations by Iraqi Governing Council
    o 6.4 Beneficiaries
    + 6.4.1 Russia
    + 6.4.2 Other
    o 6.5 Criminal investigation in France
    o 6.6 US Senate investigations
    o 6.7 Alleged Malaysian government official corruption
    o 6.8 Indictments
    o 6.9 Recent Lawsuit
  10. 26 Dec '09 03:22
    So then I beg this question? How much does the UN want control over any global climate administration of funding. Why would we want to be involved with it if they are?
    Lets just say I do buy in to this global climate change idea, and many americans say, ok lets help... who do we want monitoring where our money, efforts and sacrifices are directed?
    Does the United States kick things in gear with Nuc power? Do we head full speed converting gasoline engines to propane. Re-invest in the power grid, to get solar and wind running fast?
    Or promote rickshaw transportation in cities?
    You have to approach with intention of getting the biggest bang for your buck, and as quckly as possible.
    with our current political situation, quick would be an impossible mission.
    Boeing won't have a working model of their new bird, fast enough for Nancy Pelosis. And Barrack will be flying all over
    The solar idea sounds good. What we see here too though, is both Federal and State tax credits given, which I assume will be hard to pay for, as we are broke. A building manufacturer that installed the new solar roofing said, the payback was like 30 years, but the government credits made it worth his money... once again, what can we actually afford to spend. His roof, is being paid for by you and I.
    Our bench mark pay back time for major purchase was more like 6-9 months for improvements.
  11. 26 Dec '09 05:45
    the object is not to save money.

    the object is to spend money.

    those who are most successful at grabbing the public teat and squeezing the dollars out of it earn the privilege to continue squeezing.

    those who have doubts or who can't handle the job are pushed out of line.
  12. 26 Dec '09 05:52
    the universities churn out large quantities of graduates who by choice of major have little chance of getting a well-paying job in the commercial world.

    think English lit., or physicists.

    what do you think they're going to do?

    a lot of them will become professors. they'll have no problem justifying another 100 years of the worldwide effort to parse Shakespeare, no matter what claim the starving orphans in Darfur think they may have to the resources expended.

    now just imagine what happens with political science majors and law school grads and climatologists.
  13. 26 Dec '09 05:56
    the bell curve applies to these people also. you've got as much chance of keeping your money out of the paws of the top performers of this group as you might have were several largish yobs to burst through your door looking for beer money.

    they ran out of limousines in Denmark for this crowd! LIMOUSINES for global warming advocates! they needed 1400 of them and had to send out to neighboring countries for them!
  14. 26 Dec '09 06:02
    Do you ever really know just what the hell you are talking about?
    Thank God, I don't have to play chess with you on a table, you could beat me in 5 moves, while i tried to understand what the hell and why you are talking.
    You just won the cut and paste award for the year by the way, go claim your prize.

    :-)
  15. 26 Dec '09 06:15
    what?!? my last three posts, no cut and pastes!!!