RSS shows NO RECORDS set in 2014

" we now know from the Climategate Emails, this band [of Climategate scientists] 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…

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… 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, ... 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… In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement. "

I have you on ignore mamooth so I seldom see what you write. In this case the evidence is pretty clear that Connolly was a zealot and overstepped his bounds.
 
Let's hear Wikipedia's take on it:

William Connolley - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia']http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Connolley
Writing and editing
Connolley has authored and co-authored articles and literature reviews in the field of climatological research, with an emphasis on the climate of the Antarctic and the study of sea ice.[8] Connolley was a member of the RealClimate website until 2007,[9][10] and he operates a website and blog that discuss climate issues.[11][12] His blogs and one of his papers conclude that a majority of scientific papers in the 1970s predicted warming, not global cooling.[13][14][15] The Christian Science Monitor noted in 2007 that on Connolley's "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" and commented, "Connolley and Schneider say that if the public had looked directly at the peer-reviewed scientific papers, and not at the popular media coverage, they would not have found any basis for a global-cooling scare."[16]

Connolley began editing Wikipedia in 2003[17] and served as a Wikipedia administrator from 2006 until 2009.[18] He has been cited and quoted in the media regarding these activities, especially with respect to his editing in the area of climate change. He was cited by Naturemagazine, in their December 2005 review of the reliability of Wikipedia, as an example of an expert who edits Wikipedia.[19] Naturequoted Connolley, in 2006, as saying that "some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia" but that "conflict can sometimes result in better articles".[20] In July 2006, a New Yorker article described him as briefly becoming "a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming", in which a sceptic repeatedly "watered down" the article's explanation of the greenhouse effect.[21] Connolley told the magazine that Wikipedia "gives no privilege to those who know what they're talking about".[21] Various books have cited Connolley as an example of how expert editors on Wikipedia are given "no more credence" than anonymous editors of the site.[22][23][24] In 2007, The Sunday Timesof London ran an interview of author Andrew Keen that discussed Connolley and his Wikipedia editing. It identified Connolley as "an expert on global warming", stating: "After trying to correct inaccuracies Connolley was accused of trying to remove 'any point of view which does not match his own'. Eventually he was limited to making just one edit a day." The article stated that Wikipedia's Arbitration Committee "gave no weight to [Connolley's] expertise, and treated him with the same credibility as his anonymous opponent."[25]

Two internal disputes at Wikipedia in which Connolley was involved received additional attention. A 2005 Wikipedia climate change dispute involving breaches of etiquette, rather than content bias, was cited by a paper in the Journal of Science Communication as an example that "resonated deeply as it highlighted what can befall respected experts who wade into controversial wiki-waters". The paper stated that Connolley did "not suffer...fools gladly".[26] The same paper noted a 2009 Wikipedia arbitration in which it was concluded that Connolley had used administrator privileges to his own advantage in content disputes, and these privileges were removed.[26] Other academic papers have discussed Connolley's editing activities on Wikipedia and the dispute resolution process as it has been applied to him.[27]
 
Last edited:
One other small point: as a result of the same hearing that concluded with Connolley's loss of administrative privileges, administrative privileges were also removed from 15 other Wikipedia administrators, many of whom were of the denier or skeptic class.
 
One other small point: as a result of the same hearing that concluded with Connolley's loss of administrative privileges, administrative privileges were also removed from 15 other Wikipedia administrators, many of whom were of the denier or skeptic class.
more of you playing tag!
 
One other small point: as a result of the same hearing that concluded with Connolley's loss of administrative privileges, administrative privileges were also removed from 15 other Wikipedia administrators, many of whom were of the denier or skeptic class.

Crick showing his usual head placement.. Up his ass and blind to facts. IS that you Mr Connolley? Defending the indefensible actions of a science denier because it doesn't fit his agenda and socialist control One World Government he prays for..
 
only once that energy has bypassed the GHG/Co2 bottleneck at the surface does radiation become the main escape factor above the cloud tops.

At high altitudes there is very little water vapor so the only bottleneck left is GHGs. That has been the understanding of the greenhouse effect for the last for the last 80 years or so, so it certainly does't hamper AGW.

Trenberth's cartoon-

trenberth_energy.png


I dont vouch for this, but we have to start somewhere, and it's been around for quite a while.

obviously the 396 surface radiation is for only the thinnest of skins, otherwise when you add in the H2O effects we would be a sweltering 40 or 45C. only 63w of surface energy leaves by radiation and 40w of that escapes directly through the atmospheric window.

the top of the clouds seems to be another boundary. it gets 160w from the surface (eg 17+80+63[eg 396-333]) plus 78w from solar that was absorbed by the atmosphere for a total of 238w. hmmmm....the cartoon says 239. oh well...close enough when you are claiming tenths of a watt imbalance.

at the surface 10% of the radiation goes through the window. at cloud level it is 15%. change in the emission band because of temp drop or ????
 
only once that energy has bypassed the GHG/Co2 bottleneck at the surface does radiation become the main escape factor above the cloud tops.

At high altitudes there is very little water vapor so the only bottleneck left is GHGs. That has been the understanding of the greenhouse effect for the last for the last 80 years or so, so it certainly does't hamper AGW.

Trenberth's cartoon-

trenberth_energy.png


I dont vouch for this, but we have to start somewhere, and it's been around for quite a while.

obviously the 396 surface radiation is for only the thinnest of skins, otherwise when you add in the H2O effects we would be a sweltering 40 or 45C. only 63w of surface energy leaves by radiation and 40w of that escapes directly through the atmospheric window.

the top of the clouds seems to be another boundary. it gets 160w from the surface (eg 17+80+63[eg 396-333]) plus 78w from solar that was absorbed by the atmosphere for a total of 238w. hmmmm....the cartoon says 239. oh well...close enough when you are claiming tenths of a watt imbalance.

at the surface 10% of the radiation goes through the window. at cloud level it is 15%. change in the emission band because of temp drop or ????

This is where a good portion of modeling goes very wrong. They forget that as temperature drops the wave length increases of the black body emitting the wave. Above about 18,000 feet the wave length becomes so long that CO2 doesn't even come into play.
 
In this case the evidence is pretty clear that Connolly was a zealot and overstepped his bounds.

The wikipedia logs don't lie, but deniers do. Here's Connolley's wikipedia deletion log. Few of the entries have to do with climate science, directly contradicting the denier implications that he's been deletign 5000+ denier entries.

Deletion log - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So Ian, you got some 'splainin to do concerning why you repeated lies about Connolley.

We know why, of course. You refused to look at anything except denier cult sources, despite me pointing you straight to other sources. Denier cult sources always lie, so you ended up parroting the lies. That's why you can't be trusted any more, because you're only willing to parrot denier cult sources.
 
In this case the evidence is pretty clear that Connolly was a zealot and overstepped his bounds.

The wikipedia logs don't lie, but deniers do. Here's Connolley's wikipedia deletion log. Few of the entries have to do with climate science, directly contradicting the denier implications that he's been deletign 5000+ denier entries.

Deletion log - Wikipedia the free encyclopedia

So Ian, you got some 'splainin to do concerning why you repeated lies about Connolley.

We know why, of course. You refused to look at anything except denier cult sources, despite me pointing you straight to other sources. Denier cult sources always lie, so you ended up parroting the lies. That's why you can't be trusted any more, because you're only willing to parrot denier cult sources.

you dumb fuck! ADMINISTRATIVE RIGHTS means there is no log and/or the log is open to modification. mindless drone..
 

Forum List

Back
Top