Discussion > WUWT Propaganda
Oh come on! Read your preposition, then contemplate at length what evidence you are using. Then give us all a break.
Supertroll
Phil Clarke, now you are denying all of William M Connolley's propaganda work. Go to WUWT if you want the truth. It seems your mentor has lied to you too.
But I am sure the Green Party are very proud of his outstanding contribution to BREXIT, electing Trump, and continued decline of the EU's entire energy policy. Quite some achievement.
None of it would have been possible if Climate Science had got honest about the Hockey Teamsters.
golf charlie
Someone is not above deleting data files to protect his work from review either is he? - scientific method huh?
Connolley used Wikipedia administrator privileges to his own advantage in content disputes
Two abuses of privilege right there.
Phil's quite correct in that all the edits in his own name aren't about climate.
fred
My only proposition is that Dr. Connolley was a relatively profuse contributor to wiki, which is uncontroversial.
Others are claiming (or claimed) 5,000 climate edits over an unspecified interval, activity variously described as propaganda, revisionism or gatekeeping, leading to a ban
That was always absurd, and displays an ignorance of how wiki works and Connolley's efforts - he has written on topics from Aesop to the XAN2,as Fred has conceded. He claims never to have deleted a controversial GW article, a claim that would be easy to disprove.
The sanction against Connolley was a result of a dispute between him and an anonymous user. It was a complex process, the arbitration took two months and generated 36,000 words. I guarantee his critics here have not read any of them.
Suggesting WUWT as reliable is nuts. The only </> example of a Connolley edit given in this thread is Watts,' bogus claim that he deletes any reference to Hal Lewis's APS resignation.
Fred now seems to accusing Dr Connolley of deleting data, reframing the debate.
A serious charge. Evidence?
Phil Clarke
Feb 4, 2019 at 9:10 PM | Phil Clarke
Have those lies been approved by Spin Doctor William M Connolley?
golf charlie
Proof of William M Connolley doctoring science and history.
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2016/09/14/massive-cover-exposed-lying-alarmists-rebranded-70s-global-cooling-scare-myth/
golf charlie
hint:
As a named paper co-author data integrity is a direct responsibility - where data files are converted it is customary to keep originals for the purpose of later replication of results and identification of process flaws discovered later. Malicious initially - probably not - sloppy - most certainly.
fred
Connolley did not make 5,000 edits on global warming articles, as evidenced by the fact that apparently nobody can provide a single example. Not one.Actually, Mr Clarke, he did. The actual quantity is not specified, but it is unlikely that he would have held his position as “Wikipedia administrator” if he only made the single edit that you demand evidence of. Note the subtitle “Wikipedia editing”; not an example, admittedly, but you should now accept that your claim, above, is false.
You are harking back into history, now, Mr Clarke. The egregious edits Mr Connolley made were around 2007, and received so many complaints that Wiki severely reduced his editing authority (this is also mentioned on his Wiki page, but, for obvious reasons, I would not hold all the details as immutable fact). There were many examples discussed on this site (and, no doubt, others) at the time, but most of us have moved on since then, and haven’t bothered keeping such records. Many such “edits” are still extant – I stumbled upon a few not too long ago, but cannot recall the specific subject I was looking up, other than it was climate-related. They are so blatantly false or heavily-slanted that they are quite easy to spot.
Radical Rodent
Hints, assertions, accusations, 'I remember it but can't be bothered to look it up'. No actual,examples, documents or links to documents.
I give up.
Phil Clarke
Phil Clarke, I thought you and other Hockey Teamsters were going to plead the Nuremberg Defence, not the Ernest Saunders
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ernest_Saunders
"Ernest Walter Saunders (born 21 October 1935) is a British former business manager, best known as one of the "Guinness Four", a group of businessmen who attempted fraudulently to manipulate the share price of the Guinness company. He was sentenced to five years' imprisonment, but released after 10 months as he was believed to be suffering from Alzheimer's disease, which is incurable. He subsequently made a full recovery."
golf charlie
In some ways Connolley did us a wider favor by showing how Wikipedia was just as vulnerable (rather more so, in fact) as other Encyclopedia to political ling and disinformation.
Wikipedia was a naive project from the start. There is not, never was, and never shall be, such a body of knowledge that is free from bias and lies. The whole point of education (in science, at least) is that you are being trained to be able to spot falsehoods for yourself while, hopefully, adopting the practice of not producing or propagating falsehoods.
Wikipedia does still have value and I use it much myself with the caveat that if you think the topic is at all to be considered controversial, political., or even of great current popular interest, then it cannot be trusted.
Unfortunately it also seems that about once every decade or two the idea that someone can write a computer algorithm to discern truth from "fake news" gains traction and credibility again. Google et al seem to be going through this process again, thinking that their AI can sort the wheat from the chaff when in reality it cannot even distinguish direct criticism from direct affirmation, never mind spotting sarcasm or irony. (There's a whole continent I could name that isn't very good at dealing with irony.)
michael hart
Much excitement over at WUWT over a release of some very old emails. The Watties get out their magnifying glasses and go hunting for the smoking gun that somehow eluded them in Climategates 1,2 and 3.
Obviously, they take time out from the hunt to debate other key scientific issues...
Great strides have been made in Ufology in the past 30 years. Indeed, we have developed a whole classification system for all the different alien races which visit this planet.
Heh.
Phil Clarke
Mar 5, 2019 at 11:11 PM | Phil Clarke
Lies, fraud and corruption in Climate Science have been confirmed again.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2019/03/04/climategate-continues-the-mann-hockeystick-university-of-arizona-emails-are-now-public/
"After years of trying to suppress their release, and finally being ordered to be released by a judge, they are now public, and we have them here. This will remain as a “top post” for a day, new stories will be below this one."
Old E-Mails are just as valid as old evidence for the MWP
Mann's evidence is worthless. So is the Hockey Team's
golf charlie
Assertion but no evidence as ever.
Two days have passed and nobody has found anything of any significance whatsoever.
Unless your interest is the classification of little green men, that is.
ROFL.
Phil Clarke
Sorry, Phil, the collusion demonstrated to protect the alarmist narrative is damaging. The Piltdown Mann got good advice to try to block the release of this.
It'll be awhile before this social mania, this madness of the crowd, blows up, but it will. It may take cooling and that may be awhile yet.
==============
kim
Meanwhile, you are a Big Liar, and like most Big Liars aware of that. No respect now, or ever.
======================================
kim
Climatology has made no progress in the last thirty years so, yes, they are still cutting edge.
The uncertainty in the estimates of climate sensitivity has not reduced since the IPCC was formed. Despite better computers, more satellites and more measurements at sea. Climatology has failed to make any progress.The only other “sciences” with such an abject record of failure are Ufology and Cryptozoology. For much the same reasons. All three pseudoscience assume they know the truth and look for evidence to support that rather than looking for evidence and seek theories to explain it.
clipe
"Climatology has made no progress in the last thirty years so, yes, they are still cutting edge"
M Courtney
clipe
"Assertion but no evidence as ever.
Mar 6, 2019 at 8:31 AM | Phil Clarke"
Phil Clarke, is there any evidence to support Mann's Hockey Stick?
You just generate lies and assertions.
Climate Science should have got honest.
golf charlie
I take great exception to this statement. Great strides have been made in Ufology in the past 30 years. Indeed, we have developed a whole classification system for all the different alien races which visit this planet. There is even a Wikipedia entry on the subject.
The science of Cryptozoology has made similar strides. For example, “Nessie”, the loch Ness monster has been positively identified as a plesiosaur, a species of marine reptile which has survived since the age of the dinosaurs. “Champ”, a similar creature living in Lake Champlain, in the US, is an Ichthyosaur.
Further, we have great video of “The Great Ape” known as Bigfoot in north America and as Yeti in Asia.It is only Climate “science” which has gone nowhere in the past 30 years. And no wonder, they are the ones chasing shadows and mirages.
Sarcasm alert!
clipe
Climatology has made no progress in the last thirty years so, yes, they are still cutting edge.
The uncertainty in the estimates of climate sensitivity has not reduced since the IPCC was formed. Despite better computers, more satellites and more measurements at sea. Climatology has failed to make any progress.The only other “sciences” with such an abject record of failure are Ufology and Cryptozoology. For much the same reasons. All three pseudoscience assume they know the truth and look for evidence to support that rather than looking for evidence and seek theories to explain it.
clipe
The lack of respect is mutual Kim, you alarmist, you. Still not one example, what are you scared of?
If you think a few emails between a few scientists hacked almost a decade ago changes anything much in 2019, you're frankly delusional. Heck even Mosher and Fuller, who literally wrote the book, said the mails don't change the science, AGW is real. As for collusion to protect a narrative, how about collusion to protect a scientific finding under intense and unusual political attack - or do you believe an FOI request every 30 minutes and a Congressional hearing into a scientific paper are usual procedure?
Myth: The University of East Anglia's Climatic Research Unit (CRU) emails prove that temperature data and trends were manipulated.Fact: Not true. Petitioners say that emails disclosed from CRU provide evidence of a conspiracy to manipulate data. The media coverage after the emails were released was based on email statements quoted out of context and on unsubstantiated theories of conspiracy. The CRU emails do not show either that the science is flawed or that the scientific process has been compromised. EPA carefully reviewed the CRU emails and found no indication of improper data manipulation or misrepresentation of results.
One of many investigations that found zero evidence of malpractice, and before the risible cries of 'whitewash', anyone who did not like this one could request a judicial review, nobody did. (So presumably the conspiracy embraces the US justice service ;-)
Really can't believe this stillborn horse is still being flogged a decade later, but do carry on, it makes you look foolish as well as adding to the gaiety of nations. To quote a commenter on Watts 'treasure trove' :
260 comments of nothing burger.
Wow. Eight years to get this, and ?
Heh.
Phil Clarke
Mar 7, 2019 at 10:45 AM | Phil Clarke
You were very confident that Gergis proved Mann was correct. Are you relying again on serial liars and misinformers for your confidence?
golf charlie
You were very confident that Gergis proved Mann was correct.
Not the case - as I've pointed out many times.
Phil Clarke
ST: Evidence of a large number of wikipedia edits by Dr Connolley would be a link to a wiki history showing one more such edits. Do you demur?
Fred's link to Connolleys edit count just tells us he is an active contributor, but we know he writes on a lot more than just climate...