Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles
And who might that "green doctor" be?
Quote:
One person in the nine-member Realclimate.org team — U.K. scientist and Green Party activist William Connolley — would take on particularly crucial duties.
The reason for starting RealClimate;
Quote:
“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.
I guess that PR website didn't suffice...so guess where a member of the cabal ended up;
Quote:
Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known – Wikipedia.
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.
And he wasted no time in setting about deleting articles, comments he didn't agree with and over 2000 contributors that held contrary views.
Of course, those that shared his religious belief in AGW were given free rein on the site.
These unethical so-called scientists have turned science and the processes that go into the methodology, on its ear.
The first day of any new class every professor warns the students never to cite Wikipedia in a paper and to be very careful using for any kind of research.
Wikipedia is interesting, but it is not a reliable source of information. Anybody can put in any silliness in they want.
Last edited by Dockside; 12-19-2009 at 09:51 PM..
Reason: spelling
The first day of any new class every professor warns the students never to cite Wikipedia in a paper and to be very careful using for any kind of research.
Wikipedia is interesting, but it is not a reliable source of information. Anybody can put in any silliness in they want.
Not true. Give it a look sometime -- a careful look. Of course it's full of vandals and misstatements and it's fluid, and your professors are right to want something static as a source -- but put it this way, you will *find* those static sources, as sources for articles at Wikipedia.
Not true. Give it a look sometime -- a careful look. Of course it's full of vandals and misstatements and it's fluid, and your professors are right to want something static as a source -- but put it this way, you will *find* those static sources, as sources for articles at Wikipedia.
It's good source to find other sources, other than that it's questionable at best. Too many people involved with that project take things personally. A few years back I corrected some minor things on an article about anthracite. Some really obscure things not many people would know, basically mundane non controversial material. Someone reverted my changes not long afterward.. That was first and last edit I made,the article is wrong to this day.
they where saying that we would run out of fossil fuel by the 2000s.
Oil, not Coal. We have 2 centuries of coal left. Those projections are based on the Hubbert Peak, Hubbert correctly predicted peak oil in Texas in the early 70'sand applied the same calculations to world peak production. Hasn't happened but he was also using poor data, new techniques and new finds have also extended it. Here's projection from the EIA from 2004
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
