Skip to comments.Lawrence Solomon: Wikipedia’s climate doctor-Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
Posted on 12/19/2009 5:17:11 PM PST by theBuckwheat
click here to read article
yeah and someone even updated to mention this article in the last paragraph.
I found no wikipedia page for William Connelly. If someone knows how to make one and has information about this guy that would go on the website, please put up a page on him. I’ll be interested to see if it lasts or if he or one of his administrator friends gets rid of it.
Your right, I misspelled his name, he does have a page, and that photo of him with the teddy bear is on it. Now, back to my original question, how accurate is the page? I’m coming close to hanging it up tonight, that’s two errors in reading and spelling in ten minutes. Time for bed.
I read one post that said he was paid by the Tides Foundation, but I have no documentation.
And some students still don't understand why referencing Wiki in your paper results in a automatic zero.
>I had been warned on FR that Wikipedia couldnt be trusted but I never dreamed it was this bad...
Wikipedia is good for entertainment (like comic book characters!) & non-political, semi-technical information, like: USB, SCSI, & FireWire’s what-is-it? & what-are-its-advantages? questions... also it can be a good spot for looking up computer-science or math terms & algorithm-descriptions.
Wikipedia is as reliable as talking to some drunk at the parking lot of the 7-11......Actually, that drunk is probably more reliable.
Thanks for the ping!
Looks like the leaves are falling from their Greenie tree.
Don’t be a Wikipedophile.
Yea, Rodney King Science; everybody has to go along.
Post this admonition everywhere:
“Don’t be a Wikipedophile”
dandruff Head Lice shampoo"
True, and I’ve noticed that articles on conservatives there tend to have controversy sections, while one is hard pressed to find that for a liberal.
And the critters living in it'll jump off on you!
Pure Barbara Streisand!
“dr” Connolley’s inside page is here, his page link is near the top.
I’ve been watching this creep since climategate broke open. he most certainly is attempting to control the entire AGW debate. His ‘cabal’ hovers over a set of pages related to current news twisting and forcing a very well crafted POV into the ALL the related articles.
Watching the removal/revisions/deletions his agenda is very clear and supported by more than several people, religiously.
He lost his adminship for playing dirty with other editors >> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William_M._Connolley
He very recently got had his little butt dumped as he attempted to gain a position on the Arbitration Team. Strongly voted down as lacking the ethos for the job. >>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration_Committee_Elections_December_2009#Results
It may also be notable that Doofus Connelly had an email conversation in the recent FOIA file leaked from CRU.
Clearly Mr. William M. Connelly is little man with a credential as his pitiful existence, His only goal seems to be: squash ALL other knowledge that might shed light on his beliefs.
Knowledge is free.
“One reason why no college course I have taken allows Wikipedia to be cited as a Primary (?) or Secondary source.”
Good for them! More people should heed this advice - on Wikipedia you never know if you are getting the real facts or just someone’s cleverly disguised opinion.
Global-Warming Skeptics: Is it Only the News Media Who Need to Chill?
By Tony Azios
Christian Science Monitor
October 11, 2007
Some who discount humans’ role in altering Earth’s climate point to the ‘global-cooling’ scare of the 1970s.
In the 1970s, mainstream media outlets published stories about a coming age of “global cooling” and the climate disaster it would trigger. Headlines of the time proclaimed “The Cooling World” (Newsweek, 1975), “Scientists Ask Why World Climate Is Changing: Major Cooling May Be Ahead” (The New York Times, 1975), and “Earth Seems to be Cooling Off Again” (The Christian Science Monitor, 1974). Today, skeptics of global warming sometimes point to what they call the “global-cooling scare” of the 1970s as a reason to discount what they hear now. If the news media 30 years ago hyped “global cooling” and were wrong, skeptics say, doesn’t it follow that “global warming” coverage might prove equally wrong?
But those who have looked closely at the two eras or have been part of the scientific community then and now say the comparison is unfair. William Connolley, a sort of self-appointed historian of the global-cooling theory, says that although global cooling was briefly but prominently covered in some speculative news articles, the idea never got much traction within the scientific community. New data and research over the decades has convinced the vast majority of scientists that global warming is real and under way. Dr. Connolley’s full-time job is climate modeler for the British Antarctic Survey. But on his personal website, and as a contributor to RealClimate.org (a website written and edited by working climate scientists), he’s authored a number of articles that try to clarify the place of global cooling in the history of science.
Monday, July 06, 2009
The Truth about RealClimate.org
Standard operating procedure is to post “rebuttals” to everything they disagree with and then declare victory, making sure to censor comments challenging their position. It doesn’t matter if they actual rebutted any of the science or facts just so long as they provide the existence of a criticism. This gives their fanboys “ammunition” to further promote alarmist propaganda across the Internet (and of course declare victory). Their resident propagandist William Connolley’s job is to edit dissent and smear skeptical scientists on Wikipedia. In the world of global warming alarmist “science” pretending you win is apparently all that matters because in real debates they lose. The truth is that RealClimate.org is an environmentalist shill site directly connected to an eco-activist group, Environmental Media Services and Al Gore but they don’t want you to know that.
Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Discover the Networks)
EMS’s founder and President was Arlie Schardt, who also served as the National Press Secretary for Al Gore’s 1988 presidential campaign, and as Gore’s Communications Director during his 2000 bid for the White House. [...]
EMS officially served as the “scientific” branch of the leftist public-relations firm Fenton Communications; both companies shared the same Washington, D.C. address and office space. For more than a decade, David Fenton (CEO of Fenton Communications) used EMS to run negative media campaigns against a wide variety of targets, including biogenetic foods, America’s dairy industry, and President George W. Bush. [...]
EMS also produced many stories condemning the Bush administration’s environmental policies. Among these titles were: “Bush Administration Obscures Truth About Toxic Cleanups”; “President Bush Signs Fatally Flawed Wildfire Bill”; “Earth Day Event To Highlight Bush Administration Assault On Environment, Public Health”; “Bush Administration Report Card: ‘F’ on Protecting Children”; and “National Environmental Groups Launch Campaign to Defeat President Bush.” EMS claimed that the data contained in its press releases constituted “the latest and most credible information” provided by “top scientists, physicians, and other experts.” These “experts” included officials of Greenpeace, the Natural Resources Defense Council, the World Wildlife Fund, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Environmental Media Services (EMS) (Activist Cash)
EMS is the communications arm of leftist public relations firm Fenton Communications. Based in Washington, in the same office suite as Fenton, EMS claims to be “providing journalists with the most current information on environmental issues.” A more accurate assessment might be that it spoon-feeds the news media sensationalized stories, based on questionable science, and featuring activist “experts,” all designed to promote and enrich David Fenton’s paying clients, and build credibility for the nonprofit ones. It’s a clever racket, and EMS & Fenton have been running it since 1994. [...]
It’s called “black marketing,” and Environmental Media Services has become the principal reason Fenton Communications is so good at it. EMS lends an air of legitimacy to what might otherwise be dismissed (and rightly so) as fear-mongering from the lunatic fringe. In addition to pre-packaged “story ideas” for the mass media, EMS provides commentaries, briefing papers, and even a stable of experts, all carefully calculated to win points for paying clients. These “experts,” though, are also part of the ruse. Over 70% of them earn their paychecks from current or past Fenton clients, all of which have a financial stake in seeing to it that the scare tactics prevail. It’s a clever deception perpetrated on journalists who generally don’t consider do-gooder environmentalists to be capable of such blatant and duplicitous “spin.”
(snip - MUCH more at link)
November 28, 2009
ClimateGate: What are the Alarmists So Afraid of?
Yesterday, Fenton Communications announced a $10,000 Social Media Grant for nonprofits who need assistance getting into Social Media. The grant is only for DC-area nonprofits with the deadline of December 18th.
CRU Hack, time to hit back
hard (LIB MELTDOWN)
Greenfyre Blog ^ | Today | Greenfyre
Posted on Sunday, November 22, 2009
I found this in the comment section of WUWT:
crosspatch (22:32:47) :
The entire culture around global warming is warped. I only today discovered that there was such a thing as:
The Environmental Psychology Research Group at the University of Surrey which I discovered in this document while digging into those responsible for creating this document, a copy of which was found in Jones files in the documents directory.
It is all apparently about how to convince the population to buy in to more government control of their lives using global warming as the hook.
If you look at it in the abstract, it isnt about whether or not there really is any global warming. The science doesnt really matter. As long as they can get people to believe in it, that is enough. It is hearts that matters, not minds as is evident from the quote found in document at the first link:
Motivating messages need to hit an emotional cord. People are busy. They resist change. In order to get their attention and support for change, you have to connect with people by plugging into their belief systems. Not trying to rewire it It is not necessary to be inaccurate or to dumb down issues, but its essential to engage peoples passion you need to reach people emotionally first and then educate them. Hearts first, and then minds.
So once you have someone believing in the notion that the climate is headed for disaster, that it is our collective fault, and only the government or the UN can save us from disaster, then they will shut out the message of skeptics and actually react against skeptics.
The second document is about propgandizing global warming. That is the document that was found in Jones files. It is produced by Futerra which seems to be an environmental version of Fenton Communications (Current Fenton staffers have worked with Futerra and vice versa).
38 posted on Sunday, November 22, 2009 6:20:34 AM by Walmartian
CLICK- the interactive links
October 01, 2004
The ‘Real Voice’ Is George Soros
Interesting exchange of comments:
“Associated with RC” is a bit misleading. Apparently they organised our initial press release... but if there is more, I don’t know it.
Posted by: William Connolley at February 23, 2007 10:09 AM
Thanks, that is why I linked to the RC explanation of this ... it is not clear to me how Fenton and EMS are “associated” or the value of the services provided by EMS to RC. Nor do I much care.
It is an interesting coincidence — when I Googled Fenton I saw this page:
. . . and was surprised to see RC listed. I this “associated” is fair enough given all this ambiguity. It is not a big deal.
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. at February 23, 2007 10:20 AM
Dr. Pielke, I regret to inform you that your reputation has been targeted for termination.
If, as it appears, the United Nations Foundation has decided to set up this IPCCfacts.org sock-puppet by hiring Fenton Communications, you are probably going to be under assault from more such shell advocacy organization. And I doubt the U.N. Foundation will be the only sugar-daddy sponsoring that site.
Fenton’s purpose is to insulate the funders from the unethical behaviour needed to tear down and defame those who are seen as a threat to the funders agenda. And many a Fenton graduate work directly for, in the old boy/girl network that dominates the foundations, the funders as well.
I know this because I worked at a foundation active in funding such environmentalist sock-puppets for three years. And anytime a particularly nasty piece of wet-work needed to be performed, Fenton was the assassin of choice.
With the rolodexes that Fenton maintains, I strongly doubt the recent Wikipedia and Grist attacks, or Mr. Adam’s visit are unrelated.
Posted by: bubba at February 23, 2007 10:21 AM
William- Also — Seems like a post from RC on the “facts” in IPCCfacts.org would be a good use of RC time. Lots of stuff in there looks like it might benefit from some expert eyes . . .
Posted by: Roger Pielke, Jr. [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 23, 2007 10:22 AM
It is worrying that they get their stuff wrong. However, it is more worrying that they exist. Why does the UN support a foundation that is obviously there only to say those things the IPCC leaders want to say, but cannot because it violates their mandate.
Posted by: Richard Tol at February 23, 2007 10:48 AM
The UN Foundation is an advocacy organization representing the special interests of its constituent, well constituent in this case.
Every organization or association in the nation, even foreign countries and our own federal states, maintain such lobbying bodies to try and affect their chances during the appropriations contest in congress.
The UN is a special interest like any other panting after federal largesse.
Posted by: bubba at February 23, 2007 11:15 AM
We regret that your views were misrepresented on IPCCfacts.org, and have removed the post.
The intent of the site is to follow the conversation around the IPCC report and, where mischaracterizations about the report are made, clearly and directly present the IPCC findings. We stand behind our presentation of the IPCC report findings.
We regret the error.
Posted by: Joel Finkelstein at February 23, 2007 03:20 PM
Do I understand well that the United Nations Foundation is a private lobby group that is not affiliated, in any official sense, with the United Nations? Is it OK for the United Nations if similar bizarre groups use the name of the international organizations as parts of their names?
I think that the name creates a lot of confusion. The “scientists” on the website write a lot of absurd things, e.g. they deny that the new report has excluded the previous speculative predictions about a catastrophic sea level rise - and the design looks like these crackpots represent the United Nations which is no good.
But I am afraid that this sequence of events reflects the situation that de facto exists anyway: it’s similar political lobby groups and foundations that are the primary authors of key decisions about the United Nations. The IPCC panel may contain many honest and smart scientists but the conclusions that become important are being invented by people like Mr Moss.
Posted by: Lubos Motl at February 23, 2007 04:37 PM
You underestimate the UN. They are not salivating after federal monies - unless federal is plural... After whetting their appetite via the Iraqi Oil for Food scam, they’re going global.
And yes, multiple Google searches show Fenton to be around the periphery of the carbon trading scene.
Posted by: Tim Clear [TypeKey Profile Page] at February 23, 2007 07:19 PM
IF Wikipedia were actually a scholarly pursuit rather than a pretend scholarly pursuit, it would be academic fraud?
“Cheating on a game show...isn’t that like plagiarizing from a comic strip?”
Haul him off to the gallows in leg irons.
All of Connelley’s contributions should be removed from Wikipedia if the encyclopedia wants any chance at being considered credible.
That’s no teddy bear - That’s a sock-puppet! Official pet of Soros Inc.
Connolley is exemplary of the leftist ideologues of the new era,clearly fascist in thier handling of the isuue of free speech. And unfortunately many of his ilk are elected giovernment officials....fascists all.
Let Connolley’s unforgiveable tyrannical conduct be a warning to all.
We are at war with a fascist movement.
This is a big deal!
Wikipedia, the online "free encyclopedia" mega-site written and edited entirely by its users, has been deleting within minutes any mention of eligibility issues surrounding Barack Obama's presidency, with administrators kicking off anyone who writes about the subject, WND has learned. A perusal through Obama's current Wikipedia entry finds a heavily guarded, mostly glowing biography about the U.S. president. Some of Obama's most controversial past affiliations, including with Rev. Jeremiah Wright and former Weathermen terrorist Bill Ayers, are not once mentioned, even though those associations received much news media attention and served as dominant themes during the presidential elections last year. Also completely lacking is any mention of the well-publicized concerns surrounding Obama's eligibility to serve as commander-in-chief. Indeed, multiple times, Wikipedia users who wrote about the eligibility issues had their entries deleted almost immediately and were banned from re-posting any material on the website for three days. In one example, one Wikipedia user acting as part of WND's investigation added the following to Obama's page: "There have been some doubts about whether Obama was born in the U.S. after the politician refused to release to the public a carbon copy of his birth certificate and amid claims from his relatives he may have been born in Kenya. Numerous lawsuits have been filed petitioning Obama to release his birth certificate, but most suits have been thrown out by the courts." As is required on the online encyclopedia, that entry was backed up by third-party media articles, citing the Chicago Tribune and WorldNetDaily.com The entry was posted on Feb. 24, at 6:16 p.m. EST. Just three minutes later, the entry was removed by a Wikipedia administrator, claiming the posting violated the websites rules against "fringe" material.
At least I think its him. He does link back to his Wiki page.
Don’t believe in Establishment Official so-called Science, it’s nothing but lies and nonsense to forward evil agendas.
Ask yourself this...who has time to rewrite 5,428 articles? Some guy on some kind of government research project? And when did he have time to do the actual project?
Something here smells awful suspicious. I’d like to know who was paying his normal paycheck? A university or corporation? And if so....they allow some guy to basically dedicate all his work time to this kind of fetish? (notice, I didn’t even call it a fascination or hobby or job).
There’s something else to this story and how this guy had the time to accomplish all of this.
**Ask yourself this...who has time to rewrite 5,428 articles?**
Rewriting Wiki probably WAS GOVERNMENT RESEARCH with a hefty grant (after all, we fund ACORN).
coming with govt research and grants comes.. college age Intern and Research Assistants. You can do a lot of rewriting with a dozen college kids, who don’t know better, and ...CUT AND PASTE!!
I deal with these liberal academic types all the time... they do all kinds of things that most “REAL PEOPLE” would never believe as possible.
Possible SURE.. Probable.. possibly...