Special Report
Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate
Wikipedia’s founder asks for “civility” even as it’s revealed that “Wikipedia’s Green Doctor rewrote 5248 climate articles.”
Jimmy Wales, the founder of Wikipedia, had an article in yesterday’s Wall Street Journal drawing attention to the rise of “online hostility” and the “degeneration of online civility.” He (and coauthor Andrea Weckerle) suggested ways in which we can “prevent the worst among us from silencing the best among us.”
I agree with just about everything that they say. But there is one problem that Mr. Wales does not go near. That is the use of Wikipedia itself to inflame the political debate by permitting activists to rewrite the contributions of others. All by itself, that surely is a contributor to online incivility.
The issue that I am particularly thinking about is “climate change” — or global warming as it was once called (until the globe stopped warming, about a decade ago). Recently the Financial Post in Canada published an article by Lawrence Solomon, with this remarkable headline:
How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.
Solomon draws attention to the online labors of one William M. Connolley, a Green Party activist and software engineer in Britain. Starting in February 2003, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. I continue with a two-paragraph direct quote from Mr. Solomon’s article:
[Connolley] 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 [of climatologist activists]. 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 [of activists] 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.
Online replies to this article included the following, appearing about 24 hours after Solomon’s article went on line:
Recently, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee determined that “William M. Connolley has, on a number of occasions misused his administrator tools by acting while involved” and, as a consequence, “William M. Connolley’s administrative privileges are revoked.”
But three days later, on December 23, a follow-up article by Solomon said this:
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.
So he is still at it, apparently. Connolley has for years been involved with a website called RealClimate.org. It broadcasts the views of a group of warmist ideologues, otherwise known as “working climate scientists.” (Among them is Penn State’s Michael Mann, the inventor of the “hockey stick.”) My guess is that even if Connolley’s Wiki privileges have been revoked, his RealClimate allies continue to labor on his behalf.
The interesting paragraph below comes from Connolley’s own Wiki entry, and I suppose was written by him:
His work was also the subject of hearings by Wikipedia’s arbitration committee after a complaint was filed claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in an article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. A “humiliating one-revert-a-day” editing restriction was imposed on Connolley, and he told The New Yorker that Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about.” The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley served as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006. [The New Yorker article was by Stacy Schiff, July 31, 2006]
About the Author
Tom Bethell is a senior editor of The American Spectator and author of The Politically Incorrect Guide to Science, The Noblest Triumph: Property and Prosperity Through the Ages, and most recently Questioning Einstein: Is Relativity Necessary? (2009).
Letter to the Editor View all comments (118) | Leave a comment
Related Articles
More Articles by Tom Bethell
More Articles From Special Report
http://spectator.org/archives/2009/12/30/wikipedia-meets-its-own-climat
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Wincing at Cumberbatch
- A President Loses His Power
- Ailes: A Voice for the Silent Majority
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
Appleby| 12.30.09 @ 6:32AM
Only idiots and those under 20 (oops, I repeat myself) believe Wikipedia is a believable and reliable source for anything.
Rocco| 12.30.09 @ 7:30AM
Ah, Appleby, you forget that most everyone else believes things are true because they're on TV!!!! LOL
Cheers & Happy New Year!
Charles Martel| 12.31.09 @ 4:35AM
On subjects lacking controversy, they are harmless. Medieval history, for example, provokes few fights and invites little malicious intervention. And they have beautiful and extraordinary maps.
That said, their partisan politicization of controversial topics prevents my donating to what would otherwise be an admirable project.
+++
Rick Z| 1.3.10 @ 8:46PM
Concur.
Wikipedia is excellent for noncontroversial issues, and especially useful to get the CURRENT status of an evolving situation.
Also useful for specific facts of controversial topics ... how old is Hillary Clinton.
Partisans for disputed topics are tireless in promoting the Party Line (i.e. Metanarrative) of their view. You get the latest change from one side or the other.
The issue of prejudiced editors is particularly troubling.
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 9:29PM
..or whether Rush Limbaugh really IS dead.
~That is their latest.
http://www.radaronline.com/exc.....baugh-dead
No Left-leaning liars there, huh?
victor| 12.31.09 @ 10:30AM
A timely and aprpos example of Da Wiki's unerring infallibility:
http://www.radaronline.com/exc.....baugh-dead
Just remember, we have members here at AmSpec who swear by Wiki, eh Todd?
Most, however, swear at, Wiki.
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 7:17AM
Twitter Trackbacks for The American Spectator : Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 12.30.09 @ 7:21AM
The American Spectator : Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate, on PunditKix, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
bluecollarbytes| 12.30.09 @ 8:06AM
To be fair, Wikipedia is as much about gossip and innuendo as it is about political indoctrination.
ponpandi| 3.11.10 @ 6:51AM
friend
Tony in Central PA| 12.30.09 @ 8:22AM
Anybody who trusts Wikipedia as a source of reliable information probably isn't going to be able to distinguish between good and bad science.
Ryan| 12.30.09 @ 8:26AM
I love Wikipedia. It's an absolutely amazing animal.
It's a good place to start, but you have to know how to use it. The infighting that occurs on even not-so-controversial subjects is sometimes more revealing than the articles themselves. It allows the common guy to really question an "expert" and it's a forum where you cannot necessarily hide behind your degrees and expertise.
Disputed articles make for VERY good reading, particularly on the talk pages.
Alarm1201| 12.30.09 @ 8:55AM
A agree. I love Wikipedia also. But it does have limits. Anything that can be politicized should be ignored and it is a great place to start the process of researching a topic.
I do not know how many times I come across a person(s) or event(s) that I had never heard of or only have a vague concept of and I turn to Wiki for help. I could spend hours reading it.
Truth to Power| 12.30.09 @ 9:43AM
"Anything that can be politicized should be ignored ..."
I agree with the basic idea but the problem is that the Left will eventually politicize everything. Who would guess that they would try to remove all historical references to a warming period in the past? How long will these bunch of fascists resist going into the libraries and getting rid of inconvenient books?
david morgan | 1.3.10 @ 11:06AM
Have you noticed - they are closing libraries all over the country! One way or another - don't ya know.
PJ| 12.30.09 @ 12:39PM
I agree w/you; it's an amazing animal. People are able to submit information on many topics. However, it may not be accurate. -------- There's no unbiased authority to judge on accuracy. I use it alot. It gives me lots of research ideas. Yet, I NEVER quote from Wiki when I write my research papers & anyone w/at least 1/2 a brain should never quote from it either. One loses all credible if you do.
Otis, my man!| 12.30.09 @ 2:45PM
A wise man once said the definition of Wisdom is: "The capacity to perceive truth."
Wikipedia is a good place to train, for those who wish to learn wisdom.
Cheers!
Declan| 12.31.09 @ 12:10AM
Wikipedia itself recommends that you don't quote it in academic papers or research, and only use it as a "starting point" for further research in reliable sources. So one can't say that they aren't aware of their own limitations.
Phil Hoey| 12.30.09 @ 9:29AM
I no longer trust Wikipedia. I have a Masters in MIS and have made some contributions only to have them edited to be more 'PC'. Being PC is not a search for truth but only the misuse of data to 'prove' a political point of view. I have also been a participant in BOINC projects for over 10 years. One of those projects was 'climate prediction'. When I realized how particular runs appeared to be slanted to give one result (very easy to do in computer modeling) – I dropped that project. I have better things to do with my spare computer cycles, like looking for new medicine, modeling the Milky Way or looking for ET phone home signals. I still sometimes search Wikipedia when I need a good laugh.
Prof_X| 12.30.09 @ 11:05AM
As a teacher, I tell my students that Wikipedia is not an acceptable source to use for academic papers. If I find a listing for Wikipedia in a paper, they lose a half a grade. (e.g. B to B-) If they only use Wikipedia, it is an automatic F. It is not just Wikipedia, but ANY web site or blog that is not run by a reputable source. If a student references an article on TIME magazines web site I allow it. If they reference a discussion thread on the article it is not allowed.
Quartermaster| 12.30.09 @ 12:24PM
Has Time Mag suddenly become a trustworthy source? Last I looked, the reigning ideology at Time was the same one that rules Wikipedia. If Wiki is not acceptable, then Time should not be either.
And, Wikipedia is certainly not a reliable source in itself.
gospelmidi | 12.31.09 @ 2:45PM
I am sorry that you do not recognize the power of censorship in news propagation, especially in the DownStream Media. The most obvious example is the DSM cone of silence placed over the United States about Mr. Obama's Constitutional ineligibility for the office of President.
Mr. Obama is disqualified for the office of President, not being a "natural born citizen,"
as required by the U.S. Constitution, Art. II, § 1.
Pat Boone asks, "Where is the Birth Certificate?"
www dot wnd dot com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=102330
"Debunking the Obamatoids" by Lynn Stuter
www dot newswithviews dot com/Stuter/stuter146.htm
"Obama Presidential Eligibility - An Introductory Primer" by Stephen Tonchen
(Birthers who consider Mr. Obama's birthplace to be of vital importance are not agreed upon Leo Donofrio's view in Section 18. There is room for both opinions, as Mr. Obama is vulnerable on both flanks. Infighting about which is valid is counter-productive.)
people.mags dot net/tonchen/birthers.htm
Mario Apuzzo, Esq., attorney for Kerchner v. Obama
puzo1.blogspot dot com/
Philip J. Berg, Esq., attorney for Hollister v. Obama a/k/a Soetoro, Berg v. Obama, and Berg as Relator v. Obama
www dot obamacrimes dot info/
Leo Donofrio, Esq., on natural born citizenship (temporarily offline during the disenfranchised auto dealers' lawsuit).
naturalborncitizen.wordpress dot com/
Dr. Orly Taitz, Esq., attorney for Barnett, Keyes, et al v. Obama
www dot orlytaitzesq dot com
"Dr. Ron Polarik" debunks the COLB forgery presented by DailyKos and FactCheck.
polarik.blogtownhall dot com/2008/11/22/obamas_born_conspiracy
_obamas_bogus_birth_certificate_exposed!.thtml
Pamela Geller on "Obama's Birth Certificate Forgery." A few have declared the forensics expert a fraud, but, except for - maybe - one or two details, his analysis is sound.
atlasshrugs2000.typepad dot com/atlas_shrugs/2008/07/atlas-exclusive.html
The ALIPAC thread on Barack Obama's Constitutional ineligibility
www dot alipac dot us/ftopic-137238-.html
This thread includes a summary of reasons why the DailyKos / FactCheck "Certification" is a forgery.
www dot alipac dot us/ftopic-137238-days0-orderasc-1403.html
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 11:58AM
Wikipropaganda - PPRuNe Forums links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
vitadMD| 12.30.09 @ 12:14PM
A similar investigation should be done on the Wikipedia entry about Obama as well as natural born citizenship... Imagine what an amazing resource Wikipedia could be if professional documentation, integrity, and transparency were allowed to prevail!
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 12:32PM
Wikipedia is more a source of entertainment than fact. Anybody can write anything they want so you can't expect to get the truth.
With this article revealing the political slant of the founders and writers is it really surprising that the Toddards of the world love to use it a a reference so often when trying to "teach" us lessers? :^)
cdc| 12.30.09 @ 10:35PM
People have been able to write whatever they want and get it published for centuries. Wiki just makes it faster with more peer review.
Margie| 12.30.09 @ 10:55PM
What peer review? Anybody can go in there and change an entry any time of day.
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 1:31PM
Our War of Attrition, and Why It Will Fail « Left Coast Ledger links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
David J| 12.30.09 @ 1:50PM
We have a very similar problem in our Public schools.
Don| 12.30.09 @ 2:06PM
Well yes, the study of human effects on the climate, in scientific terms, is hugely complicated but that does not excuse the ignoring of the re-writing of history. The evidence of past warm and cold periods are overwhelming and easy to support. Ice core studies more than prove the actual climate of past epochs which throughly debunk the 'Inconvenient truths' of Al Gore and company.
Vern Crisler| 12.30.09 @ 2:21PM
I use Wikipedia for initial research purposes (bibliography), but I would be cautious in using it as a final authority. Just to take a couple of examples, the Wikipedia reports for Intelligent Design and Mark Steyn are perfect examples of how to write biased entries.
I just checked the entry for Tom Bethell and it's a hoot as far as squeezing bias into as few words as possible.
While Wikipedia can be useful much of the time, it's also a joke at other times.
Allan| 12.30.09 @ 5:32PM
Did you notice the "Global Warming" entry in Wikipedia is locked so it can't be altered.
That speaks volumes.
Marc Jeric | 12.30.09 @ 7:12PM
This globaloney warming conspiracy by our marxists and econazis must be put in the 40-year perspectives to be understood - as follows:
1) There was first in the 1970's the global cooling scam (see e.g. Newsweek April 28 1975 on the Internet); the government-paid scientists (90% of them are rejects of private enterprise) recommended to fight the new ice age by sending our war planes to cover the polar ice with soot in order to increase solar heat and so prevent crushing of New York skyscrapers by the new glaciers;
2) When that did not work we had the global warming hoax in the 1990's, proclaimed by mainly the same government-paid scientists (Dr. Hansen of the NOAA, for example); to prevent the massive heating, fires, flooding of coastal cities, disappearance of Florida, California, and Caribbean islands, massive hurricanes, global famine, and other catastrophic events we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies;
3) after 11 years of considerable cooling we are now faced with the climate change flimflam where whatever happens with our climate we should nationalize oil and gas and coal and electricity companies; and why not our banks, car and insurance companies while we are at it. To prevent this catastrophe the best vehicle presumably is international agreements enforced by the United Nations world government.
As for the influence of carbon dioxide as a greenhouse gas: on a normal day the atmosphere contains 20,000 ppm (parts per million) of water vapor and about 300 ppm of carbon dioxide. The government-paid scientists say that an increase of 100 ppm of CO2 over the next 50 years will result in a catastrophic warming. The thermal absorptivity of water vapor is 4 times larger than that of carbon dioxide; it follows that the CO2 increase will increase the overall thermal absorptivity of the mixture by about 1/8 of one percent. The production of methane from livestock flatulence and the rotting swamps (called "wetlands" by the environmentalists) vastly surpasses the influence of human-produced CO2.
There is the Global Warming Petition Project (see Internet) where 31,478 US independent scientists declared that there is no anthropogenic (human-caused) global warming; of these 9,029 are scientists with PhD degrees. Our environmentalists tried to sabotage this effort by submiiting phony names with phoney degrees - and then claimed the whole effort by the Petition scientists was a fraud. It took us 3 years and a lot of private money to verify the credentials of all the signatories and clean up the Petition of those saboteurs. See also Manhattan Declaration with more such signatories, plus a large number of scientific groups from other countries who state the same.
I am one of these signatories, MS and PhD degrees from UCLA, with majors in thermodynamics and heat & mass transfer.
I think to fight this communist attempt to secure a permanent hold on power should not be fought on the narrow grounds of more taxes - that is the losing proposition; where about 50% of the population is on some kind of welfare we will always be outvoted. The battle should be fought and won on the firm scientific basis.
4) And now we have "cap™" power grab.
SCAM - HOAX - FLIMFLAM - POWER GRAB!!!
apk| 12.31.09 @ 5:54AM
Thank God for clear headed thinkers such as yourself Marc. Keep up the good work you have a lot of supporters out here who are busy undoing the harm to our our children within our schools by this hoax. I can only hope that climate gate is the impetus that begins to rid our higher education system of this PC correct junk science.
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 5:10PM
My advise? Home school your children. You have to re educate them anyway when they come home from public school anyway if you want them to learn the truth. The truth being that our founding Fathers were not racists, that God created man, that 2 +2 really does equal 4.. that man really cannot control the environment but God does in His loving kindness since the very beginning of this wonderful planet He has given us, that abstinence really does work, that homosexuality is really sin and God did not make us that way.. and I am sure I am missing some other things too.
Home school if you can!
William | 1.3.10 @ 6:45PM
If you want to advise people about schooling, it would be a good idea to learn how to spell "advice".
Did you know that the bible forbids you to eat weasels?
Rick Z| 1.3.10 @ 8:53PM
Of course we know the Bible prohibits us from eating weasels.
That is why we elect them to office.
Margie| 1.3.10 @ 9:18PM
Picky, picky, picky. Typical Leftist picking on the spelling. Maybe it's because I wasn't home schooled..ha!
Judging from your website I'd say you definitely weren't. An atheist, are you?
Now that would be the real issue here, wouldn't it?
Another sign that you weren't home schooled is that you don't know your Bible. It forbids no such thing, as God declared to call nothing unclean as far as animals, to eat! (Acts 10:13).
If you don't know God, you know nothing.
Even if you do know how to spell.
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 7:44PM
American Fluorescent VRR217TRE8 Reed and Ribbon Vanity Light, Hand Applied Rust Finis links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 12.30.09 @ 9:07PM
The American Spectator : Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate Wikipedian links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Bullwinkles| 12.30.09 @ 9:27PM
Scrupulosity?
BHG| 12.30.09 @ 9:39PM
Check out http://en.wikipedia.org/w/wiki....._Connolley
He hasn't been an arbitrator since 12-18-09 but should he be contributing to articles on the Middle Warming Period and Richard Lindzen? Is it normal that he's copyrighted HadCM3 graphs?
Mondo Frazier | 12.30.09 @ 9:49PM
Very concise summary of Wikipedia's Connolley problem. The Associated Press has a Connolley of their own in Seth Borenstein [http://deathby1000papercuts.com/2009/12/seth-borenstein-ap-has-a-science-writer-problems/].
Wikipedia will either adequately address it's editing biases--not just on climate change, but all politicized subjects--or it will fade into irrelevancy, like so many other websites that were once the too big to fail.
John G| 12.30.09 @ 11:01PM
IT'S FALSE FLAGS & DIVIDE-AND-CONQUER BY THE INTERNATIONAL BANKERS.
FOLLOW THE MONEY!!
REPUBLICANS & DEMOCRATES ARE BOTH IN ON IT!
THERE IS ONLY PRO-SMALLER GOVERNMENT/ANTI-PREEMPTIVE-WAR/ANTI-FEDERAL RESERVE AND PRO-BIG GOV'T/PRO-PREEMPTIVE WAR/PRO-FED RESERVE. PICK YOUR SIDE.
WWW.INFOWARS.COM
Britcom | 12.30.09 @ 11:38PM
Ha-HA! XD
Willy Connelly EXPOSED for all the world to see. This guy is some piece of work. Academic corruption follows him around like stink on monkey.
Hey Tom, great article. I am a Wikipedia editor and I have been a special target for Willy's abuse in the past while editing Global Warming related pages. He has blocked me and re-edited or deleted my comments on talk pages, or gotten his flunkies to do so in his stead. If you need any material for a follow up, feel free to use any of the material compiled on my Wikipedia Talk Page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Britcom
-
Pingback| 12.31.09 @ 5:59AM
connections and context: American exhibits/audiences and modern African art : a criti links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Martin Ackroyd| 12.31.09 @ 6:00AM
A message from Jimmy Wales appeared on my screen asking for financial support for Wikipeadia. I sent the reply to Wikipeadia, asking for it to be forwarded to Jimmy Wales.
" Dear Jimmy Wales,
I read your appeal for money to support Wikipaedia. I admire Wikipaedi and I think it is of great benefit when it deals with uncontroversial matters.
However, on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), I believe that Wikipaedia is doing immense harm by presenting AGW scaremongering as established fact. The issue is so serious that, in my opinion, the benefit Wikipaedia provides is more than negated.
I hope that this issue will be recognised and addressed by Wikipaedia. When that happens, I shall be delighted to contribute to Wikipaedia's finanacial support.
Sincerely, Martin H Ackroyd, PhD"
I received a reply from Wikipeadia which (I think) said that my message would not be forwarded to Jimmy Wales and which whinged about the "one-sidedness" of the coverage that Wikipaedia had received. The pot whinging that it has been called black?
Regards,
Martin Ackroyd
Wiki's reply:
" Mr. Wales does not have an active role in administering Wikipedia.
"We are aware that there has been substantial coverage of global warming and Wikipedia and also administrator William Connolley. We note that the coverage is very one-sided, and fails to indicate that Mr. Connolley was stripped of his administrative privileges over three months ago as part of several sanctions against users involved in the behaviour mentioned."
DK | 12.31.09 @ 9:21AM
Wikipedia is, and always has been, a complete waste of time and cannot be trusted.
Ying| 12.31.09 @ 1:19PM
Put away the computer. Get out the Britannica.
Pingback| 12.31.09 @ 1:52PM
Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate – Tom Bethel, The American Spectator « HOME – Oth links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Russell Seitz| 12.31.09 @ 2:12PM
It is good to see that Frostbite falls stands behind Tom's latest
Russell Seitz| 12.31.09 @ 3:19PM
I however cannot . Tom writes of
" Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world's most distinguished climate scientists,"
Fred is , or was- he retired three decades ago , the politically appointed Chief Scientist of the Department of transportation, having previously made his mark by postulating that an asteroid impact formed the moon. I challenge Tom to show me a single paper by Fred that has significantly advanced our understanding of the Earth's atmosphere. Being dead wrong about the ozone layer does not count .
As to astrophysicists " Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics," [I have some coauthors there , and writing from the physics department down the hill I note that neither Sallie or Willie has worked hereabouts for years- they are at Mount Wilson Observatory in LA] being " authorities on the Medieval Warm Period." it is they who have indulged in an ideologically inspired , and industrially subsidized revisionism outside of their field of expertise- you can't count tree rings with a telescope or a weather satellite .
Tom might as well write of " Hildegard of Bingen and the Venerable Bede, authorities on Heliocentric Astrophysics." on the strength of their references to the star of Bethlehem.
It's nice to have another update on signature gathering among the true disbelievers, but though the taximeter has passed 31, 478 souls. 99.88% still haven't published a damn thing in the scientific literature. Why should we be impressed by the signatures of the 31,441 who remain unable to add anything new , true, and robust enough to survive peer review to the science in question ?
Such being the case , Tom's , and by extension the Discovery Institute's fascination with who's on top at Wikipedia is understandable. I'll stick to Britannica, thanks.
Pingback| 12.31.09 @ 7:53PM
Christian News New Zealand » Blog Archive » Wikipedia Gets Its Very Own Climategate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 5:39AM
The American Spectator : Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate American Me links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.1.10 @ 7:25AM
The American Spectator : Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate capital university links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Britcom| 1.1.10 @ 2:59PM
Russell Seitz, Your post (which I am sure makes some kind of sense you) is incomprehensible to readers of this blog. Your use of academic jargon and own horn blowing and your attempt to discredit the logical and well explained opinions of skeptics of the AGW hoax shows that you have not a clue how to speak and debate in circles outside your small circle of egg-heads. Your reliance on appeals to (unimpressive) authority rather than reason and logic shows that your opinion is nothing more than that of a AGW Kool-aid drinker and apologist for the hoax and not a legitimate independent thinker or reporter on the subject currently under discussion here on Spectator. So called 'Climate Scientists' and their hokum are not as well respected by the public as you appear to assume and you are doing nothing to enhance any respectability for them here.
Russell Seitz| 1.1.10 @ 3:14PM
Would the Editor hiding behind the handle Britcom kindly unlock the strikethrough he turned on the course of striking out in his previous reply.
Britcom| 1.2.10 @ 8:40AM
The strike through started with Pingback 12.31.09 @ 7:53PM. It's nothing to do with me and I did not strike out my post.
Bill rom WV| 1.2.10 @ 11:06AM
I never ceases to amaze me that when a criminal is caught the first thing they plead is for civility of those who judge them, and complain of the anger that is felt toward them!
This guy is lucky I am not his judge he would never see daylight, and the likes of Jimmy Wales who knowingly supported his action would be in the cell next to them!
These people are continuing to perpetrate the greatest criminal fraud the planet has ever known! And make no mistake it is criminal. The intentional use of misinformation for the purpose of knowingly making an illegal profit!
Wikipedia proved there bias when they scrubbed articles relating to Obama's past history.
They are an arm of the liberal left, and this shows just how far they are willing go to LIE to the American and world public to achieve the liberal's agenda!
</strike>| 1.2.10 @ 11:19AM
0</strike>| 1.2.10 @ 11:22AM
</strike>
Pingback| 1.2.10 @ 1:05PM
No rise in Atmospheric C02 in last 150 years - Page 5 - Politics.ie links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Trackback| 1.3.10 @ 3:50AM
fix bad credit, on fix bad credit, links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
steven davis| 1.4.10 @ 7:25PM
and you wonder why wikipedia is not allowed as a citation source in college courses. not only are the articles not peer-reviewed, they are allowed to be changed at will at the whim of another.
Rick| 1.4.10 @ 9:09PM
He spoke in Denver at a training convention and used the forum to bash Bush. It was totally embarassing, for him that is. I lost any respect for him and his "product". I wish I would have walked out on him.
ricom | 1.5.10 @ 1:48AM
Wikipedia is a professional blog.
Pingback| 1.5.10 @ 6:51PM
Teaching ignorance and bigotry | Rationality Now links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.8.10 @ 5:39PM
Wikipedia Meets Its Own Climategate links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.11.10 @ 10:37PM
Truth is Reason The Science of Global Cooling links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.14.10 @ 10:23PM
In the News – 01/14/2010 « Rainy Skies links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.16.10 @ 6:57PM
CO2 Theory Hit Hard by Recent Global Cooling « OBRL-News Blog links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
Pingback| 1.24.10 @ 3:32AM
Celebrity Paycut - Encouraging celebrities all over the world to save us from global links to this page. Here’s an excerpt:
xx | 4.2.10 @ 3:15AM
xx
yui56| 4.22.10 @ 9:59PM
Both FIFA and UEFA have awards which they hand out to individuals or groups of people who have promoted what they see as the spirit of Fair Play, both within and outside of football. An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated by many sections of the football world for a generous display of Fair Play. Despite having a goal scoring opportunity while playing for West Ham United against Everton, when Di Canio saw the Everton goalkeeper had picked up an injury, instead of scoring what could have been the easiest goal of his career, he caught the ball, thus stopping play and allowing the goalkeeper to receive treatment
werty| 4.22.10 @ 10:03PM
I’ll have a Poptropica full written walkthrough very soon, but in the meantime, here are some answers to some of the frequently asked questions about Mythology Island. Having trouble? Post a question in the comments and I’ll try to answer it!
Getting Hercules to Help You
Both FIFA and UEFA have awards which they hand out to individuals or groups of people who have promoted what they see as the spirit of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010, both within and outside of football. An example of this was the Italian player Paolo Di Canio who, while not given an award, was congratulated by many sections of the football world for a generous display of ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010. Despite having a goal scoring opportunity while playing for West Ham United against Everton, when Di Canio saw the Everton goalkeeper had picked up an injury, instead of scoring what could have been the easiest goal of his career, he caught the ball, thus stopping ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 and allowing the goalkeeper to receive treatment
belajar ngeblog | 4.29.10 @ 4:01AM
wow, i'm so interested with this article, so thanks for shared and also support ArenaBetting.com dukung fair play FIFA world cup AFSEL 2010 for the fair play football.
xcvxc| 5.5.10 @ 3:42AM
Flip Converter is a professional Flip Video Converter to help you convert Flip video, you can use it as Flip HD video converter and Flip MP4 converter. Supporting all Flip camcorder models, it can also function as Flip Ultra converter and Flip Mino converter.
gggg
Safe Healthy Life | 5.20.10 @ 1:18PM
A similar investigation should be done on the Wikipedia entry about Obama as well as natural born citizenship
Julio-Debate Popular | 11.15.10 @ 10:22AM
Fortunately, the wikipedia is also democratic and well can introduce the author's views can also appeal on the argument of this and that is as fair.