Global warming “propagandist” purged from the pages of Wikipedia

by editor on October 18, 2010

For years, global warming skeptics have complained that they were treated unfairly by Wikipedia. Now the people’s encyclopedia has admitted as much by purging its pages of William Connelley.

polar bear

Wikipedia boots William Connelley. And the polar bears weep.

FinancialPost.com has the details:

William Connolley, arguably the world’s most influential global warming advocate after Al Gore, has lost his bully pulpit. Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position at Wikipedia, the most popular reference source on the planet.

Through his position, Connolley for years kept dissenting views on global warming out of Wikipedia, allowing only those that promoted the view that global warming represented a threat to mankind. As a result, Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda, with Connolley its chief propagandist.

His career as a global warming propagandist has now been stopped, following a unanimous verdict that came down today through an arbitration proceeding conducted by Wikipedia. In the decision, a slap-down for the once-powerful Connolley by his peers, he has been barred from participating in any article, discussion or forum dealing with global warming. In addition, because he rewrote biographies of scientists and others he disagreed with, to either belittle their accomplishments or make them appear to be frauds, Wikipedia barred him — again unanimously — from editing biographies of those in the climate change field.

William Connelley was a fraud. The science is settled.

Source: FinancialPost.com

22
Leave a Reply

Please Login to comment
14 Comment threads
8 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
14 Comment authors
danybhoyAndrew JuddanonPete RidleyNewsel Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
Notify of
trackback

hermes picotin bags Knockoff for women

Of course you need to draw a difference between GRR Martin’s names and what his ideas were and David’s ideas and historical reconstruction for the languages he’s been creating. These are not the same thing, the stories were not created with all the det…

trackback

usa dating sites for free

Hello Yes is a Nice Post, Thanks.

trackback

[…] Global warming “propagandist” purged from the pages of Wikipedia https://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-william-connelley-purged-from-wikipedia-pages […]

danybhoy
Member
danybhoy

Connelley is a classic progressive bully. That’s all they are because that’s all they got. The global warming movement is a fraud & should be prosicuted criminally.

Andrew Judd
Guest
Andrew Judd

William M Connelley is still abusing people at Wiki

Re: My experiences when attempting to make changes on Wiki by Andrew Judd

Wiki is preventing a true description of the ‘greenhouse effect’ being shown on Wiki.

Wiki wants you to believe that the atmosphere heats the Surface. Anybody attempting to show that the surface heats the atmosphere will be banned.

As required by Wiki my comments were supported by the references already on the page.

I went as far as to phone up the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory Senior Scientist, Yochanan Kushnir Ph.d, who wrote reference 9 and he confirmed that the surface heats the atmosphere, and the surface is warmer because the atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the surface and the colder atmosphere cannot heat the hotter surface. That was the main point that I wanted to get onto the Wiki page.

Wiki administrator Dave Souza who may well be Connolley since Souza cannot possibly be the ten year retired local authority architect he claims to be with the energy of a fifteen year year old to prevent changes, said I had an odd unsupported opinion that the atmosphere heats the surface and was always intrumental in getting me sanctioned.

After I was banned my wife informed the editors that Dr Kushnir fully supported what I had said and even after this editor Dave Souza kept up the obfuscation that Kushnirs telephone comments were not valid for Wiki. Souza referred to my wife as das Weib when he reported her. Obviously he knew the abusive content of that expression when used to describe another mans wife. My wife was banned.

Connolley appears to be the chief abuser of anybody who attempts to make unapproved changes, but he has other names he can use to ensure no disputing editor can make changes.

Connolley did a write up of his behaviour with me on his blog where he kept up the insulting behaviour in the comments continually saying i did not know what i was talking about.

Fairly well known climate scientist James Annan called me a loon, and on his blog when i asked for an explanation he deleted the comment and said ‘do go away silly troll’. He followed up with more comments on Connolleys blog that if he told me what he did on the internet he would have to kill me. Connolley thought this was all a big joke.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/03/how_not_to_edit_wikipedia.php

These people behave like children but evidently they have some power to alter our reality.

Other editors have tried to make similar changes and been banned.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:William_M._Connolley&diff=next&oldid=337450239

The whole experience was very odd and it was only later that i found out this had all happened before and Connolley was a well known activist.

Please feel free to use this information as you wish

Regards

Andrew Judd

Pete Ridley
Guest

In the last few days I have been submitting comments on this topic to William Connolley’s blog but he has a nasty habit of deleting anything that questions his claim to being a scientist. One example is my comment of October 20 @ 12:35 PM on his thread “I’m sure Dr Lewis deserves some respect. But his opinion on climate science does not. Let’s move along” ( http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/im_sure_dr_lewis_deserves_some.php).

William “snipped” out 7/8ths of my 841-word comment but if you are interested you can see most of it on the blog of another staunch environmentalist (like William), Jo Abbess.On her “The Stoat Also Rises ” thread (http://www.joabbess.com/2010/10/17/the-stoat-also-rises/) she calls for others to give support to William but she did post my critical comment on October 20th at 11:33.

I have done some research into his claim to being a scientist and have another comment ready to submit to William’s blog. It develops the theme of my earlier comment It concludes “William, you come across as nothing more than an egotistical environmental activist, however, for the moment I’ll give you the benefit of the doubt. Maybe I simply missed something – if so please let me know, otherwise, your claim to being “Known for Research into climate change” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley) appears to me to be bogus.”

Let’s see what he does to that one.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

Newsel
Member
Newsel

But no doubt he still has his “supporters” at the UNIPCC as the lead Peer reviewer as well as senior environmental consultant to the whitewash brigade in Washington and the EPA. After all, lying SOS’s have to stick together.

Pete Ridley
Guest

Newsel, I could not find William Connolley mentioned at all among the AR4 or TAR WG1 reports. My gripe with him is that he appears to have made no scientific contribution to our present poor understanding of the processes and drivers of global climates. Having the title “Senior Scientific Officer” while working alongside research scientists as a software engineer with the British Antarctic Survey does not mean that he was a scientist. As a Chartered Engineer I worked alongside scientists at Bell-Northern Research Labs in Ottawa and had the title “Member of Scientific Staff” but that did not make me a scientist.

Can you link to information about him that shows me to be wrong? Don’t overlook the fact that I am not concerned about WG2 or 3, only WG1, The Science. It’s those processes and drivers of global climates that remain too poorly understood to permit any model to be able to predict future climates. Current models are in my opinion little better than Crystal Balls.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

anon
Guest
anon

Hi Pete Ridley. Without implying agreement with any statement Connolley has made, I think he is, by most definitions, a ‘scientist’. What I mean is, he has a PhD in the sciences and has published a number of papers in the standard peer-reviewed scientific literature. He probably didn’t write any papers that were on the right specific topic or notable enough to get mentioned in the AR4 or TAR. I don’t think Connolley is active in research now, but I think most would agree based on his background that he is a ‘scientist’.

Pete Ridley
Guest

Anon – whoever you are – you are wrong. Connolley is not a scientist he is a software engineer and acknowledges this himself, saying on 20th October in response to one of my comments “Am I a scientist? No. Was I a scientist when I worked for BAS? Yes” (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/im_sure_dr_lewis_deserves_some.php). In that response he also provided a link to a list of papers that he had been involved in as a co-author. I took a look at those papers and could find nothing that indicated that he had any significant expertise in the processes and drivers of global climates. I saw evidence of limited research into Antarctic water vapour flows 17 years ago but nothing else. If I’ve missed something then please tell me what and where.

As he said in his Realclimate statement on 1st December 2007 (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2007/12/goodbye-to-all-that) “This post announces my .. departure from .. the professional climate field in general, in favour of the wide world of Cambridge software engineering. Normally the career change of one minor scientist .. ”.

Just because he spent time years ago using his undoubted skills as a mathematician to help others model ice development in the Antarctic does not make him a scientist with expertise in the processes and drivers of global climates. As he said, he was one minor scientist, yet he had enormous influence at Wikipedia until he was ousted.

This is from a comment that I submitted on 22/23 October to his “They make a wasteland and call it peace” thread (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/the_wikipedia_disaster_area.php) which he chose to delete rather than respond to.

Quote:

I have done a bit of research into what contribution if any you have made to unravelling the considerable uncertainties that exist about those processes and drivers. I thought that, as you were working as a climate modeller for the British Antarctic Survey until December 2007, if you had made any significant contribution you would have been involved in some way with the IPCC’s scientific reports. I have checked the AR4 WG1 “List of Authors” with 616 names (including your Realclimate associates Gavin Schmidt (Modeller), Caspar Ammann, Rasmus Benestad, Stefan Rahmstorf, David Archer),
.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_authors_from_Climate_Change_2007:_The_Physical_Science_Basis). Because you acknowledge (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/about.php) that “I’m a software engineer, working on embedded firmware for Cambridge Silicon Radio ..” I could find no mention of you.

I thought that just maybe you had been involved in the TAR so checked the list of authors in Appendix III “Contributors to the IPCC WGI Third Assessment Report” (http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/tar/wg1/pdf/TAR-APPENDICES.PDF) but once again I could not find any mention of you. I wasn’t the least surprised. After all, computer programmers and software engineers do not become scientists just because they work alongside real scientists.

From that it appears that rather than being a researcher into global climate processes and drivers you were merely involved as a modeller relating to only one of the 6 major global climates defined by Köppen (http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1O14-Kppenclimateclassificatin.html), i.e. F – Perpetual Frost, all months below 0C.

So, other than the fact that you had the title of “Senior Scientific Officer” during your time working as a modeller alongside scientific researchers at the British Antarctic Survey, is there any convincing evidence that you have ever been a research scientist involved in removing those significant scientific uncertainties about the processes and drivers of those different global climates? I could find no more evidence of that than there is that I, a Chartered Engineer, was ever a scientist, even though I had the title of Member of Scientific Staff when working with scientific researchers at Bell-Northern Research Laboratories.

Unquote.

William Connolly, like many disciples of the Catastrophic AGW doctrine (Mike Kaulbars and Stewart Argo – AKA S2 – at Greenfyre, Barry Brook at Bravenewclimate, Joe Romm at Climate Progress, Graham Land at Greenfudge, Greenpeace, Jonathan Porritt at Forum for the Future, Scott Mandia at Profmandia, John Cook at Skeptical Science, Michael Tobis at initforthegold, etc. etc. etc.) has a nasty habit of deleting comments from sceptics. Open debate is not welcome.

Best regards, Pete Ridley

SC
Guest
SC

Thank God Wikipedia has some ethics…

perlcat
Member

Funniest damn thing I’ve read all day.

trackback

[…] Global warming “propagandist” purged from the pages of Wikipedia https://www.ihatethemedia.com/global-warming-william-connelley-purged-from-wikipedia-pages […]

BillGibson
Guest
BillGibson

“The science is settled.”

Someone needs a refresher course!
😉

YT
Member
YT

I don’t know why anyone considers wikipedia a reliable source of anything. Its been shown many times that articles are vandilized. There was one paper article from 4 or 5 years ago that showed that something like 30% of vandalism on politicians’ articles came from congressional subnets.

Its a pretty good source for science but anything remotely debatable like politics or history its a joke.

FranklinR
Guest
FranklinR

Agreed. I stopped reading anything on wikipedia long ago.

Dan Pangburn
Guest
Dan Pangburn

That is a start. He has done a lot of damage to science.
It will take a while before his misguided influence is purged from the perception of humanity.

perlcat
Member

Well, since they haven’t even started to get rid of his influence — just shifted it elsewhere in a game of ethical “whack-a-mole”, it isn’t even a start.

perlcat
Member

yeah, but allowing Connelley to edit *any* pages at wikipedia in the face of his lack of ethics is still an astonishing lack of judgement.

Hmmm. He’s biased and unethical — what’s not to love if you’re a lib?

If I had information up there, I wouldn’t want him touching any of it.

KimmyQueen
Guest

He shouldn’t have been allowed to continue the same day he started. I don’t know how exactly they plan to stop him, but he shouldn’t be part of Wikipedia at all.

JPTravis
Member

Exactly correct, Perlcat. While it is good news that Connelley has been banned from Global Warming articles, how do we know that his continued access as an editor at Wikipedia won’t allow him to sneak in and do the same crap? Who is policing this ban, the same people who allowed him to propagandize all these years? Color me less than reassured.

And furthermore, how many other leftwing propagandists remain as editors at Wikipedia? Take a look at Ted Kennedy’s biography: it whitewashes the Chappaquiddick incident, completely omitting any mention of the claw marks on the interior of the car made by a slowly asphyxiated Mary Jo Kopechne, or illuminating facts like Kennedy calling his lawyer hours before calling authorities to report the accident, or the fact that he changed into clean clothes and had a drink at his hotel bar while she was dying underwater. If you try to add those facts the Wikipedia editors will immediately remove them.