Wikipedia’s Own ‘Climategate’

In Global Warming on December 21, 2009 at 1:06 am

I came upon an interesting post in Watts Up With That this evening. It seems that a highly placed editor at Wikipedia with what appear to be ‘god’ privileges to edit and delete entries and ban contributors has been categorically skewing climate entries. Lots of them.

William Connolley, Global Warming zealot

William Connolley, the pony-tailed, eco-snob co-founder of had managed to eliminate untold amounts of information that may have cast a dim light on global warming orthodoxy, including the 400 year long Medieval Warming Period.

Lawrence Solomon, National Post: The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.

As we now know from the Climategate Emails this band saw the Medieval Warm Period as an enormous obstacle in their mission of spreading the word about global warming. If temperatures were warmer 1,000 years ago than today, the Climategate Emails explain in detail their message that we now live in the warmest of all possible times would be undermined. As put by one band member, a Briton named Folland at the Hadley Centre, a Medieval Warm Period “dilutes the message rather significantly.”

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.

I can’t express strongly enough (in mixed company) the disgust that I have for a “scientist” who would dismiss legitimate and recognized data simply because it “dilutes the message rather significantly”. I’ll say it again because it can’t be said enough: when you are paid to study “global warming” it doesn’t ensure future paychecks to disprove the concept.
  1. Oops. I should have said linked to it here:

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: