Tuesday, March 16, 2010

Who pays Wikipedia's William M. Connolley?

A kneejerk response towards anyone who challenges the Green/Left is to say that the challenger is "in the pay" of someone -- usually "Big Oil" -- and usually without a scrap of evidence to that effect. The email below from Thomas Lux [beegdawg007@gmail.com], however, suggests that one influential Greenie activist is so busy with his propaganda efforts that it is hard to believe that he has any other job and therefore really COULD be "in the pay" of someone

I did a bit more research into William M. Connolley and others. I'll pass this along.

My interest in this is simply that of a retired engineer who initially believed in the AGW premise. When I was a believer, I did a lot of research into alternative energy issues like solar, wind, wave power etc.. As a civil engineer, I find most alternative energy methods to be of interest, and some even make economic sense. For example, solar hotwater for most homes is now actually quite practical.

However, one day in the fall of 2008, while blissfully engaged in browsing the internet to find new alternative energy methods, I stumbled across an article on the British High Court's rebuke of the Al Gore video "An Inconvenient Truth". I subsequently came across several Lord Monkton articles and my interest in this subject was ignited.

Since than, I have read over 200 articles and papers concerning AGW. Now that I am much better informed, I believe the CO2/AGW hypothesis to be utter nonsense. After recognizing that it is unlikely that a trace gas like CO2 which exists as less than .04% of the environment could cause any climate catastrophe, I started wondering about he political motives surrounding the promotion of such an obviously ridiculous premiss. After all, not all leftist politicians are that dumb, so certainly some of the politicians promoting the AGW theory must realize that it is a seriously flawed view of climate change.

I have reviewed dozens of articles and papers, have read much of the IPCC report, and have followed closely all of the news in regards to AGW and climategate, so I now feel as though I am very up to speed on the AGW fraud which is going on in Europe, America and the U.K.. I do believe that there is a effort to control what the world knows about global warming. I am not sure to what extent governments are involved in this.

After witnessing first-hand the antics of William M. Connolley, Stephan Schultz and KimDabelsteinPetersen, I now believe that a key tactic in this effort is to manipulate what is written in Wikipedia about all that relates to the AGW theory in such a way as to promote the AGW argument. Wikipedia is the most used online encylopedia in the world.

If this is what is going on, and if there is government involvement here, this manipulation of Wikipedia would be should be a story even bigger than Climategate. This would also be a story which should be told because of the fundamental threat that such manipulation of information poses to freedom and democracy.

My primary reason for believing that WMC is being paid for his editing of Wikipedia is this: When one considers the amount of time WMC devotes to editing Wiki articles, doing research to edit Wiki articles, blogging, emailing, writing climate related articles, giving interviews, and "talking" about Wiki articles, there is simply not enough time left for WMC to have another job.

William M. Connolley.. an overview here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_M._Connolley

Following is an article on how Connolley was finally removed as a Wiki Administrator.. SYSOP... for abusing his power by blocking tow posters who disagree with him. Note here that Stephan Schultz attempts to come to WMC rescue when he sides with WMC in the review process.


Connolley has his own blog...


Connolley maintains his own webpage...


Wiki articles in which WMC participates often end up becoming restricted articles which means that he and only other “experts” can edit the articles. What seems like a restriction for WMC ultimately is a great advantage because other casual observers – even though they may possess subject expertise – are not allowed to edit the Wiki articles which are under restriction until they have proved themselves worthy by meeting time consuming Wikipedia standards for expert editors.

Example of a restricted article as a result of WMCs aggressive editing


Example of an article on probation as a result of WMCs aggressive editing.


Connolley also takes time to provide interviews to the likes of the Huffington Post..


A simple example of WMC edit designed to slant a Wiki topic toward the AGW believers and away from real science. This edit may seem harmless until you realize WMC and friends edit in this manner roughly 20,000 times a year.


Connolley has edited only 748 times in the past 30 days. He has been editing an average of 1100 times in 30 days. However, wikipedia does not provide any real protection against a person editing using several different monikers so “WMC” could actually now be editing as several different people..


Stephan Schultz – a WMC compadre and Wikipedia administrator edits 480 times in past 30 days


KimDabelsteinPetersen – another WMC compadre edits 452 times in past 30 days..


These three have averaged 56 edits PER DAY for the past 30 days. Normally, they edit more than 60 times per day. Almost all of the editing for this bunch is for a dozen or so articles which somehow related to the AGW theory. For example, search “global warming”, “climategate”, “CO2 and Climate”, etc.. For anyone with a real job or real normal life, it is virtually impossible to compete with these three self proclaimed arbiters of all things climate related.

SlimVirgin is a fascinating story which provides some clarity on how the manipulation of Wikipedia takes place. Although she was once barred temporarily from editing Wikipedia articles, SlimVirgin is again editing at the rate of nearly 2000 edits per month. Her's is a fascinating story. SlimVirgin is a Cambridge 1984 graduate named Linda Mack. She now goes by the name Sarah McKewan. Pierre Salinger (JFK's press secretary and brother in law) claimed that Linda Mack, a.k.a SlimVirgin was an MI5 agent who was planted in his office following the Lockerbie Scotland plane bombing.

A fascinating story – truly hard to believe! There is so much intrigue surrounding SlimVirgin that it is very easy to believe that she is on someone's payroll also. She appears to be a near brilliant woman who has no apparent source of income and who edits Wikipedia more than 60 times a day.



Judd Bagley, is an expert researcher whom you may want to contact because of the insight he has in regards to SlimVirgin, has been involved with exposing the practice of naked short selling and mob connections to Wall Street. In his research, Bagley comes across a character named Gary Weiss.

GW, a.k.a. Lil GW and mantmorland, is connected to SlimVirgin. It has also been alleged that GW is connected with gangsters and a cabal of extraordinarily powerful hedge fund managers who have, for a decade, manipulated Wall Street And, like SlimVirgin and William M. Connolley, Weiss is a compulsive and prolific writer who seems to bang away at his keyboard 16 hours a day to control what is known about the topic of hedge fund manipulation of Wall Street.


SlimVirgin connections with WMC...


A SlimVirgin talk with Stephen Schultz


Playing the man and not the ball

As I mentioned immediately above, the global warming "debate" mainly consists of skeptics pointing to scientific facts and Warmists replying with personal abuse and accusations. The Warmist reply is, in other words, almost always an example of an ad hominem fallacy -- one of the classic informal fallacies that one encounters in the study of formal logic. The rough translation of the fallacy into sporting terminology is, "Playing the man and not the ball". In other words, one very rarely gets a survey of the relevant facts from Warmists. Appeals to authority (another informal fallacy) are about the best they can do.

Being a typical scientific skeptic, therefore, I take very little interest in personalities and would never have gone to the trouble to do the analysis above. As it was sent to me by someone else who had done all the work, however, I thought I might as well put it up.

In accordance with that orientation, I do not intend to reproduce or excerpt a recent interview with Marc Morano. I have the highest regard for Marc but just don't think that personalities should be the issue. I might note, however, that Marc does a good job of deflecting all the expected ad hominem accusations directed against him (accusing him of being a "creationist" etc.)

A young German physicist named Jörg Rings was however, much seized by the interview, and did an analysis of it. So was it the science he analysed? No way! He analysed Marc's "tactics" and concludes that they are very clever.

Finally, in the "Comments" section of his post (08:33 of 15.03.10) he observes as follows: "Und - ich werde jetzt nicht Godwins Zorn herabrufen - gewisse historische Figuren waren auch 'extremely clever and dangerous'". That translates as: "I am not going to call down wrath of Godwin - certain historical figures were also 'extremely clever and dangerous'". In other words he compares Marc to Hitler! How's that for an ad hominem argument! It's a classic!

It really is amusing how low Warmists have to stoop in their Kampf (struggle) with reality!

Jim Inhofe slams Al Gore on climate 'hoax'

Sen. Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.) attacked former Vice President Al Gore on the Senate floor Monday, calling climate change "the greatest hoax ever perpetrated on the American people" and claiming that Gore is now "running for cover."

The “hoax” line is an Inhofe standby, but he raised the level of attack on Monday. In front of the backdrop of a blown up Weekly Standard cover featuring Gore, Inhofe railed on the former vice president. "After weeks of the global warming scandal, the world's first climate billionaire is running for cover. Yes, I'm talking about Al Gore," Inhofe charged. "He's under siege these days. The credibility of the IPCC is eroding. The EPA's endangerment finding is collapsing. And belief that global warming is leading to catastrophe is evaporating. Gore seems to be drowning in a sea of his own global warming illusions nevertheless. He's desperately trying to keep global warming alarmism alive today."

Inhofe also floated a political conspiracy theory focused on Gore. He cited a secret “high-level meeting with all [Gore's] global alarmists,” called a recent Gore op-ed in the New York Times a "sure-fire sign of desperation" and compared Gore to an ostrich.

“When it comes to reform and openness and transparency and peer review, and when it comes to practicing good science, Gore stands alone,” Inhofe said. “He wants the world to put its head in the sand and pretend nothing's happening. It reminds me of the two boy ostriches chasing the two girl ostriches. They're chasing them, the one girl ostrich said, 'What do we do? They said, let's hide so each girl ostrich stuck their head in the hole and the boy ostriches gallop up to the clearing and one of them said, 'Where did the girls go?' This is what we're looking at here. They're hiding their head in the sand and Gore's writing this op-ed."

Inhofe spoke for approximately a half hour before yielding the floor. He also mentioned the climate change legislation being worked on by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and John Kerry (D-Mass.), saying that if any form of a cap-and-trade bill passes "people are going to be the losers."


Doctor Of Lies

The Elmer Gantry of global warming (For those who read Sinclair Lewis)

Instead of having his Nobel Prize rescinded for espousing climate fraud, the prophet of doom is set to receive an honorary doctorate of laws and humane letters from the University of Tennessee for his work. 'Vice President Gore's career has been marked by visionary leadership, and his work has quite literally changed our planet for the better," UT Knoxville Chancellor Jimmy G. Cheek said in a prepared statement.

We are not making this up, though we will not dispute Gore's having had visions. He has warned us of sea levels rising so high and so fast that we should see boats moored on the top of the Washington Monument. Polar bears would drown en masse for lack of ice at the same time snow measured in feet blanketed large parts of the country.

We used to call it weather. He called it climate change and made a fortune doing so. Revelations that the Fourth Assessment Report produced by the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change was based on anecdotes, student dissertations and non-peer-reviewed articles in foreign magazines have not dissuaded him. Everybody makes mistakes, Gore says. And channeling Dan Rather's explanation of his bogus claims about President Bush's National Guard service, he says the evidence may be forged but the story is still true.

Confronted with the inconvenient truths such as CRU director Phil Jones admitting there has been no warming trend for at least the last 15 years, Gore monotones: "What is important is that the overwhelming consensus on global warming remains unchanged." He doesn't need no stinking facts.

Well, the seas are not about to swallow us anytime soon, the Himalayan glaciers will not vanish before dinnertime, and the only thing the polar bears have to worry about is overpopulation. We have documented his falsehoods and those of the IPCC and the researchers at Britain's Climatic Research Unit. We have also pointed the money they have made off their climate scams.

According to the Guardian, a British newspaper, Gore has investments in one company that has received more than half a billion dollars in subsidies from the Department of Energy. Financial disclosure documents released before the 2000 election put the Gore family's net worth at $1 million to $2 million. A mere nine years later, estimates are that he is now worth about $100 million. He could become the world's first carbon billionaire.

Gore has not changed the planet for the better. He has pushed policies that have stunted economic growth and increased joblessness, poverty and hunger around the world. He's a climate charlatan, the Elmer Gantry of global warming, and it matters not if his latest undeserved award is printed on recycled paper.


Greenies play dirty on coal, natural gas

They don't discuss the subject too openly outside their own circles, but environmentalists make crystal clear on their Web sites that they want to stop all coal-based power production in this country. They claim coal can never be made clean, so it must be eliminated before it's too late to do anything about global warming. Ted Nace puts it succinctly in a Grist Web site post: "The stakes, for all life on the planet, surpass those of any previous crisis."

That may sound extreme, but Nace is merely expressing mainstream environmentalist thinking. The Sierra Club, for example, tracks the status of all coal-fired power plants in this country on its "Stop the Coal Rush" page. The environmentalists have been remarkably successful in preventing construction of new coal-fired power plants, with 126 having been stopped since 2001, according to the Sierra Club data. And Nace crows that not a single one was started in 2009. Even so, nearly half of all electricity used in the United States is generated by coal-fired power plants, down from a high of 57 percent in 1987.

Regardless of whether one agrees with the goal of eliminating coal-fired power production, it is critically important that policymakers and voters alike understand the duplicitous game being played on them by environmentalists. It is seen most vividly when environmentalists talk about how they plan to replace coal with an array of "green" alternative energy sources, including biomass, solar, wind and ethanol.

What they don't want to talk about is the fact that there's no way those sources are going to replace coal-fired power production by 2030. And they don't want to talk about the fact that there's another extraordinarily plentiful and much cleaner energy source — natural gas — that can readily replace coal and lower energy costs more effectively than any alternative source. In fact, the same environmentalists who are shutting down coal plants are also opposing increased natural gas production. In other words, it's their green way, or nothing.

President Obama and Ken Salazar, his Interior Department secretary, are following right along with the environmentalist playbook on these matters. Salazar recently announced that his department will issue no permits for off-shore natural gas exploration and production before 2012, at the earliest, even though experts agree there are trillions of cubic feet of natural gas waiting to be harvested.

Salazar thus short-circuits the 2008 lifting of presidential and congressional bans on such activities. That means no new off-shore energy development will be approved during Obama's first term in the White House. Meanwhile, Obama is showering billions of tax dollars on alternative energy resources that the Energy Department says won't even be close to replacing coal by 2030.


The CSIRO calls this proof?

By Andrew Bolt, writing from Australia

It’s a bizarre way to “prove” their case:
AUSTRALIA’s two leading scientific agencies will release a report today showing Australia has warmed significantly over the past 50 years, and stating categorically that ‘’climate change is real‘’.

The State of the Climate snapshot, drawn together by CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology partly in response to recent attacks on the science underpinning climate change, shows that Australia’s mean temperature has increased 0.7 degrees since 1960. The statement also finds average daily maximum temperatures have increased every decade for the past 50 years.

The report states that temperature observations, among others indicators, ‘’clearly demonstrate climate change is real’’, and says that CSIRO and the Bureau of Meteorology ‘’will continue to provide observations and research so Australia’s responses are underpinned by clear empirical data’’.

The report also found that the 2000s were Australia’s warmest decade on record; that sea levels rose between 1.5 and three millimetres a year in Australia’s south and east, and between seven and 10 millimetres in the north between 1993 and 2009; and that sea surface temperatures have risen 0.4 degrees since 1960.

Why is this surprisingly scanty propaganda pamphlet bizarre, and not quite honest?

First, no one is doubting that “climate change is real”. Climate changes all the time. This is not the debate.

Second, we’re talking about global warming, so why does the CSIRO and BOM’s pamphlet give only Australian temperatures? Is that because it knows that to show world temperatures stayed flat since 2001 actually casts doubt on just how much man’s gases are driving the post-mini-ice-age warming?

Third, given the CSIRO praised the since-discredited An Inconvenient Truth, claiming ”its scientific basis is very sound”, can we really trust its advocacy science?

Fourth, the CSIRO and BOM’s document does not address any of the recent challenges to the processes which produced the concensus that man is almost certainly to blame for most of the recent warming. Nor does it mention recent debate about adjustments made to Australian temperature records of the kind that increase the reported warming trend.

Fifth, what’s most at issue (other than man’s contribution to any warming) is whether any warming will in fact be disastrous, and something we must spend billions to help avert. The record so far of alarmists such as Al Gore, Tim Flannery, Ove Hoegh-Guldberg, the IPCC and even the CSIRO itself is that the catastrophism is wildly exaggerated and we might often do better to keep our money in our pockets for the day that we’re called on to cope with whatever happens in the far-off future. But on this, again, this document adds zero to our understanding.

But, of course, this brazenly political document got the unquestioning hero treatment on the ABC’s AM program, in what sounded like the two fingers to its chairman.


How much can this propaganda sheet be trusted to tell you the let-the-cards-fall-where-they-may truth? Judge from this example: "...total rainfall on the Australian continent has been relatively stable"

Stable? Why didn’t the CSIRO and BOM tell the reassuring truth - that total rainfall has in fact increased?

More HERE (See the original for links)


For more postings from me, see DISSECTING LEFTISM, TONGUE-TIED, EDUCATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL, POLITICAL CORRECTNESS WATCH, FOOD & HEALTH SKEPTIC, GUN WATCH, SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, AUSTRALIAN POLITICS, IMMIGRATION WATCH INTERNATIONAL and EYE ON BRITAIN. My Home Pages are here or here or here. Email me (John Ray) here. For readers in China or for times when blogger.com is playing up, there are mirrors of this site here and here



~~Just Me in T~~ said...

Today we learn that Lord Christopher Monckton has once again come forward to warn the United States of America – and the entire world we expect, that the United Nations will try again to get their ‘treaty’ passed in Bonn, Germany. The video of Lord Monckton speaking is found at the Cfact link.
(click here) http://just-me-in-t.blogspot.com/2010/03/you-voted-them-in.html

Kristin said...

You write: "That translates as: "I am not going to call down wrath of Godwin - certain historical figures were also 'extremely clever and dangerous'". In other words he compares Marc to Hitler! How's that for an ad hominem argument! It's a classic!"

The "Godwin" that the physicist referred to is Mike Godwin, who coined Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies (Godwin's Law). It states that: ""As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches 1."

The references to Hitler are an informal fallacy known as Reductio ad Hitlerum, in which it's claimed that a policy leads to (or is the same as) one advocated or implemented by Adolf Hitler, thus proving that the original policy is evil or bad. Really, it's no more than guilt by association.

The warmists resort to these types of attacks and fallacies because they have nothing else...and they believe people are dumb enough to fall for it.