I would guess that any student in the world with access to the internet has used Wikipedia as a source of information when asked to write a paper or a report on "global warming" or climate change. The following tailoring of information, even re-writing history explains how we have an entire generation of young people who believe this outrageously stupid myth of man-caused global warming.
People have and are being deceived on a huge scale. Is this "cooking the books" a criminal activity? I don't know. I do know it is a disgrace and shameful.
Peter
December 20 2009
How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm.
The emails also describe how the band plotted to rewrite history as well as science, particularly by eliminating the Medieval Warm Period, a 400 year period that began around 1000 AD.
The Climategate Emails reveal something else, too: the enlistment of the most widely read source of information in the world — Wikipedia — in the wholesale rewriting of this history.
The Medieval Warm Period, which followed the meanness and cold of the Dark Ages, was a great time in human history — it allowed humans around the world to bask in a glorious warmth that vastly improved agriculture, increased life spans and otherwise bettered the human condition.
But the Medieval Warm Period was not so great for some humans in our own time — the same small band that believes the planet has now entered an unprecedented and dangerous warm period. 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.”
Even before the Climategate Emails came to light, the problem posed by the Medieval Warm Period to this band was known. “We have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period” read a pre-Climategate email, circa 1995, as attested to at hearings of the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works. But the Climategate transcripts were more extensive and more illuminating — they provided an unvarnished look at the struggles that the climate practitioners underwent before settling on their scientific dogma.
The Climategate Emails showed, for example, that some members of the band were uncomfortable with aspects of their work, some even questioning the need to erase the existence of the Medieval Warm Period 1,000 years earlier.
Said Briffa, one of their chief practitioners: “I know there is pressure to present a nice tidy story as regards ‘apparent unprecedented warming in a thousand years or more in the proxy data’ but in reality the situation is not quite so simple. … I believe that the recent warmth was probably matched about 1,000 years ago.”
In the end, Briffa and other members of the band overcame their doubts and settled on their dogma. With the help of the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the highest climate change authority of all, they published what became the icon of their movement — the hockey stick graph. This icon showed temperatures in the last 1,000 years to have been stable — no Medieval Warm Period, not even the Little Ice Age of a few centuries ago.
But the UN’s official verdict that the Medieval Warm Period had not existed did not erase the countless schoolbooks, encyclopedias, and other scholarly sources that claimed it had. Rewriting those would take decades, time that the band members didn’t have if they were to save the globe from warming.
Instead, the band members turned to their friends in the media and to the blogosphere, creating a website called RealClimate.org. “The idea is that we working climate scientists should have a place where we can mount a rapid response to supposedly ‘bombshell’ papers that are doing the rounds” in aid of “combating dis-information,” one email explained, referring to criticisms of the hockey stick and anything else suggesting that temperatures today were not the hottest in recorded time. 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.
The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.
3 comments:
# Evelyn 2009-12-21 00:36
Joseph Goebbels will never be dead when people like Connelley and the rest of these Climate Change Green Activists are still busy. You know - "the bigger the lie, the more readily people will believe it" and "repeat the same lies often enough, and people will eventually believe them."
But anyone, who ever stayed awake in the Geography class at school, knows that the Earth's climate is ALWAYS changing.
Anyone who ever went to school History classes, knows that some periods in history were colder or warmer than the climate of today. Colder periods were often associated with poverty, famine and a higher mortality rate. So where's all the Big Panic coming from?
Anyone who ever stayed awake in the school Biology class, knows that CO2 is what all animal life breathes out, and that all green plant life breathes it in. Green trees and agricultural crops thrive on it, and life on Earth would not be possible without it.
CO2 is not a pollutant - it is essential to life. It is not a threat to the planet. Almost the only 'greenhouse gas' which really matters is water vapour; and without clouds in the sky, life would be impossible.
So, as the General Public are not the COMPLETE idiots that some people take us for, why don't these charlatans tell us what this scam is REALLY all about?
Al Gore an adviser for Google.
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2009/10/15/al-gore-advised-google-about-its-search-quality
Now be fair, folks, there is plenty about the AGW "controversy" on Wikipedia.
And do we really think that all these people who wanted their opinions heard in Wikipedia were being objective and measured? (See above response) Or were these people trying to filibuster their way into rewriting AGW from a neocon standpoint? I know what I think. Go to Conservapedia if you want a slanted view of the world.
So often the hard right conservative movement is infuriated by people who do not agree absolutely, exactly with them.
And when exactly did the conservatives begin whining so much? Why do conservatives want to be victims so often?
Post a Comment