Dec
Wikipedia’s climate change doctors
Climategate has shown the that environmental scientists can no longer be taken at their word. Put simply–they are as capable of lying as politicians. Now comes news that a group of radical climate change believers, in an attempt to remove the “Medieval Warm Period” from existence and to instead jam the hockey stick up our ass, they coordinated efforts to alter Wikipedia’s climate change pages. Read this incredible–but not unbelievable, if you fully understand Wikipedia–story. Here is an excerpt:
…One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.
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
Full story: FP Comment | Discuss: here
UPDATE TO STORY: Radical editors still rule Wikipedia climate change propaganda
Possibly related posts:
Isn’t this old news? I am not a fan of a strong advocate for anything editing Wikipedia articles on subjects they advocate about, but my impression (perhaps incorrect) is that he has moved on to other things.
New news or old news, we’re sure it’s news to many people. Remember, many are just waking up to climategate.
Wow!! The lengths to which the global warming freaks will go continues to amaze me.
you’re cute.!
A reasonable question “how could all of these scientists in organizations like NASA, UEA-CRU, NOAA, etc… be on the same page when it comes to AGW” lets rewind the tape to see if we can find a satisfactory answer. 1986 a smallish CSU campus just north of the Golden Gate. A nascent department titled Enviromental Studies is gathering in new acolytes by preaching the life altering Green philosopy. Why did some professors feel the need to break with their traditional natural science depatments? Because they wanted to harness their energies to a very political cause without having the non-believers looking over their shoulders. They began with a political goal rather than an interest in some particular aspect of an established scientific discipline. What was the mind-set of the students attracted to the new department? You know the answer to that. From day one, as climategate has proven, politics has been the horse pulling the climate science cart. Carefully directed funding, control of the conversation, and discipline over time have built the moloch which exists today. Maybe the Wiki story is old news but it is part of the story of “how”. I agree with the sentiment that we have to expose the whole story to a new set of freshily opened minds. The green narrative has been built to K2 proportions and we will need to debunk it by digging away it’s very foundation rock. It’s unlikely that we will accomplish this with one stunning blow like the climategate emails and data. Climategate will have to be as holistic as the fraud it seeks to expose. Each of us is a rock hammer chipping away until this Berlin Wall of the mind is breached. But doubt not that it will fall.
When the whole Climategate matter first came to the public’s attention, someone set up a page in Wikipedia for the matter.
It was headed “Climategate”.
In a matter of days, that was changed to the more clumsy title :
“The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident”
Go to a wiki’s home page and type in Climategate and you get diverted to that lopsided “Climate research Unit e-mail hacking incident”
An editor calling himself “ChrisO” altered the title to the present one, claiming that Wiki has a policy on the use of the term “-gate”.
This may or may not be the case, but it conveniently does away with the term that has been used by many main stream newspapers on the grounds that it is doesn’t fit with Wiki policy.
In there opening lines, they state :
“The Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident, referred to by some sources as “Climategate”…”
By some ?
This is utterly disingenuous given how many arms of Main Stream Media & journalists have used the term.
Over the period the page was set up, the same set of editors, have stopped blog sites from being referred to, except where those same blog sites (such as Realclimate) etc supprt the theory of man made global warming.
The bias is extraodinary, not just for its overtness, but also for the duplicitous manner in which the so called “wiki rules” are applied or not applied.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident#Climategate
Now the whole thing has been locked up so that no one can edit the page. It remains as a first class piece of apologia for the AGW propagandists over at Wiki.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit_e-mail_hacking_incident
Wiki has become a Joke.
It should re-name itself
Wanker-pedia.
Aqua Fyre
I never liked the name “Climategate” anyway…too late to change it now I guess.
and as an ironic historical aside… the very act of compiling an encylopedia or compilation of knowledge was considered extemely subversive in 18th century europe. voltaire and his like all participated in the creation of encyclopedia’s as an effective means of skirting establishment (church/government) control. this history may explain why the agw crowd would make such a sustained effort at something as seemingly harmless as wiki. they understand it’s underlying power to inform the conversation. no matter. like their predecessors they will lose out to the enlightenment.
[...] news! William Connolley may have manipulated over 5,000 pages at Wikipedia, but he’s apparently not in bed with Urban Dictionary. There’s a new word on their [...]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_with_%22-gate%22_suffix
Wikipedia maintains a list of -gate scandals and many of them have their own pages named -gate
[...] week ago we posted the article, Wikipedia’s climate change doctors, which spoke of a group of radical climate change believers who in an attempt to remove the [...]