For AGW religionists, when in doubt, change the facts

Ethel C. Fenig
American Thinker
December 20, 2009

In the religion of AGW, Human Caused Global Warming, if facts don’t fit the theology, the facts must change, not the theology.

Amazingly, it is easy to change the facts to fit the desired thesis; easier than deliberately altering an experiment. Writing in the Financial Post, Lawrence Solomon reports how a Green Party activist, a fervent believer in global warming, was troubled by the existence of evidence that previous global warming had occurred 1000 years ago during the Middle Ages, a time of human blossoming, increased food supply and better living after the cold, aptly named Dark Ages.

What to do? Change his high priestly role in the religion of Global Warming? Nope. All he had to do was rewrite the facts as they existed in Wikipedia, the online user written encyclopedia.

Facts didn’t validate the theology of global warming? No problem–eliminate them. Unbelievers were punished with the Wiki equivalent of being burnt at the stake–their articles were removed or changed without permission or the ultimate punishment…banishment from Wiki! Voila! New phony facts–the perfect oxymoron–that magically proved the new theology!

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.

This certainly isn’t the scientific method I was taught in elementary school.

 

Read the original post here. 

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Probe News, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Leftist Green party member exposed using Wikipedia to preach enviro doom

(Dec. 19, 2009) Climate alarmists have put enormous pressure on the western media to supress knowledge of facts inconvenient to their scientific arguments using a variety of methods to supress dissenting opinion. Continue reading

Posted in The Deniers | 1 Comment

Wikipedia’s climate doctor: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

(Dec. 19, 2009) The Climategate Emails describe how a small band of climatologists cooked the books to make the last century seem dangerously warm. Continue reading

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment

Leftist Green party member exposed using Wikipedia to preach enviro doom

Matthew Sheffield
NewsBusters
December 19, 2009

Climate alarmists have put enormous pressure on the western media to supress knowledge of facts inconvenient to their scientific arguments using a variety of methods to supress dissenting opinion.

Besides threatening journalists, promoting the use of Nazi-esque insults like the word “deniers,” and bullying scientists who publish research papers critical of their near-religious beliefs, alarmists have taken to the web with aplomb, most famously exposed in the ongoing “ClimateGate” scandal.

Engaging in politicized science via email isn’t the only cyber activity that left-enviro activists engage in however. Wikipedia is also a favorite target, particularly for a British global warming activist named William Connolley who seems to have made it his life’s mission to censor climate realists in the online encyclopedia.
Story Continues Below Ad ?

Connolley claims he is employed currently as a software developer and has not disclosed that he is paid to engage in wiki enviro-activism. Considering that most of his wiki contributions seem to happen outside of business hours GMT, it seems likely that Connolley is interacting with Wikipedia on his personal time.

Climate alarmism seems to have become a personal obsession for him, however. Just this past Thursday, the UK Green Party politician made 31 comments or revisions to articles according to his user contributions page.

In the month of August 2009 (one which I picked randomly), Connolley had a total of 451 edits or comments, averaging out to 15 every day of the month. That, mind you, is with a two-week hiatus of August 15th through 24th where Connolley made no edits factored in.

During June of 2009, Connolley literally could not take a break from Wikipedia, making a whopping total of 815 contributions to the site spread over every day of the month, an average of 27 each day.

What sorts of edits has Connolley made to Wikipedia, however? For that, let’s turn to Canadian journalist Lawrence Solomon who has this excellent summary of just some of Connolley’s numerous wiki actions:

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.

Quite disturbing indeed.

Incidentally, Connolley is currently up for election as a Wikipedia administrator. If you are a registered user, you can cast your ballot against his left-wing propaganda campaign here.

Such a horrendously biased an obsessed individual should not be allowed to decide what is neutral or fair, the ostensible guiding principle of Wikipedia.

Matthew Sheffield is the creator of NewsBusters and its Executive Editor.

Read the original story here. 

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Probe News, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Wikipedia’s climate doctor: How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles

Lawrence Solomon
Financial Post
December 19, 2009

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.

LawrenceSolomon@nextcity.com

Sources for this column: 

Warmer Days and Longer Lives

U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works Hearing Statements: 12/06/2006

Posted in Climate Change, Energy Probe News, The Deniers | Leave a comment

This is no way to run a planet

William Watson
National Post
December 18, 2009

The leaders in Copenhagen will reach some agreement. Politically, they have to…

As world leaders arrive in Copenhagen, luggage filled with deficit-financed public funds to facilitate the do-or-the-planet-dies climate deal that is the object of this weekend’s last-minute, round-the-clock deliberations, the question arises: Is this any way to run a planet? “Deliberation” is not the right word, by the way. Nothing done by 200 negotiators at three o’clock in the morning on an artificial deadline will be deliberate. Yet deliberate is exactly what’s needed when contemplating large-scale changes in how the world — the world, the whole world — does business.

Even if your level of warming skepticism doesn’t reach as high as the average on this page, you’ve got to wonder whether last-minute all-nighters are the best way to do anything serious. Remember how we got the Meech Lake Accord: Brian Mulroney locked the premiers up and wouldn’t give them access to a bathroom until they’d made a deal. Or think of how the U.S. is reforming health care. It’s a political bazaar involving one president and 535 sole-proprietor politicians in Congress. Their handiwork is now at 2,000 pages and counting and only someone taking heavy doses of imagination-enhancing drugs could believe the new system they’re designing will work right.

Now multiply that by 200 countries (albeit some of them with not many more than 535 people), let many of the countries (such as ours) send over a full range of domestic political actors so that all their usual domestic peccadilloes are played out before the whole world, add in several hundred NGOs, almost as many big corporations, unknown numbers of guerilla-comedy groups, thousands of increasingly agitated protestors (many probably funded, at least indirectly, by the governments they despise), and thousands more reporters all looking for stories that are novel, dramatic and, the one absolute requirement, photogenic, and tie it all up with last-minute fly-ins by 120 heads of government and the chance of anything reasonable being decided is about as great as the chance of  Al Gore and Bjorn Lomborg or David Suzuki and Larry Solomon agreeing on global warming.

Deep inside any good economist there’s a little bit of anarchist: we don’t mind disorder, we favour letting people go their own ways. But what’s going on in Copenhagen seems just crazy. The lead news story Tuesday — the very first story among all the things that had happened in the whole world that day — was how a comedy group, the Yes Men (not even the Yes People), had scammed the Canadian government by putting out a press release written on official-looking Government of Canada stationery and posted on an official-looking Government of Canada website that announced a big new shift in Canadian climate policy toward Africa. How droll! How clever!

It seems all reporters have now had courses in post-modernism, so instead of this being a bit of an outrage, and certainly a joke on the media people who initially fell for it, it turned into significant commentary — which is what reporters aren’t actually supposed to do — on the Canadian government’s supposedly inadequate climate policies. I say “supposedly” on the off chance you haven’t yet bought into the revealed media truth that our policies are in fact extremely inadequate. All the NGOs say they are, so they must be. Or at least that’s what the average reporter on the Copenhagen beat seems to think.

The average reporter had better wake up and understand that for a certain demographic out here, when this-or-that environmental group gives the Government of Canada its daily satiric award for inadequate greenhouse-gas policies, that actually persuades us that the Government’s refreshing refusal to play the hypocritical promise-anything-deliver-nothing game is really what the world needs more of.

The Government of Canada we can have some respect for. Not unconditional respect, as readers will know, but some. It was elected by several million Canadian voters. In devising its policies it probably heeds the opinions of several hundred thousand more who didn’t vote for it last time but whose minds it hopes to change next time round. But no Canadian voted for the Yes Men. Despite years of trying, the Canadian political party the Yes Men most likely favour (the Greens) hasn’t won a single seat in parliament, out of more than 300 available, this despite its leader’s dramatic overexposure in the media. Why does the Yes Men’s opinion — on anything, let alone a public policy question of considerable importance — merit our attention?

Likewise, although Silvio Berlusconi was elected by several million Italians, because his politics are not modishly Left and because he has a Tiger-ish attitude toward women, when some deranged activist breaks his nose and knocks out a couple of his teeth by hurling a souvenir at him, that is occasion, not for outrage or for universal condemnation of violence displacing democratic politics, but for something very close to amusement.

I suppose the 120 leaders will come up with a document to sign in Copenhagen. The political and media stakes are too high for them not to. We can only hope what they do sign will have been worked out weeks ago, behind closed doors, before their visit to the Copenhagen Zoo.

Posted in Costs, Benefits and Risks, Energy Probe News | Leave a comment

Aldyen Donnelly: The not-so-secret Copenhagen tax

There is nothing "secret", as suggested in a recent article by Kevin Gaudet, about new global tax proposals being discussed in draft treaties at Copenhagen. Every one of the new taxes outlined in the article was included in a set of options appearing in brackets in the draft Copenhagen agreement for negotiators that was published in October and I circulated and commented on in early November. 

What is happening now is that a number of different revised drafts—each containing one set of proposals—are circulating in Copenhagen. They are all labeled "secret" simply because none of them are officially sanctioned negotiating text. Each revised draft has its proponents, and few of the proponents for any one draft appear willing to consider alternatives to their draft.

This is the ultimate negotiating break down.

The single largest concern is that our negotiators are now focused on one task—finding ambiguous enough language to put in one document that parties who cannot agree on key principals can create the appearance of an agreement, of some sort, by the end of the week. It is exactly this kind of "treaty-making" strategy that led us into the Pacific Salmon War and the Softwood Lumber Dispute.

When the negotiators shift from trying to reach agreement to trying to put text in place that fakes the appearance of agreement, serious and costly future trade disputes are the inevitable result.

In the Copenhagen context, one VERY large problem is the conflict between how US/Japan and EU/China will read the wording regarding international taxation and Official Development Assistance ("ODA", "aid"). Any final test will suggest that nations must keep their pre-existing ODA commitments and any new global agency-administered taxes and developing nation assistance agreed to in the Copenhagen agreement shall be in addition to those pre-existing aid commitments. This provision was included in the Kyoto Protocol—but immediately after ratifying the Kyoto Protocol, Japan cut US$4 billion out of its long-standing international aid commitments and created:

  • a US$2 billion budget set aside for Japanese government CER (developing nation credit) purchases
  • a US$1 billion budget set aside for new international Human Resource development initiatives and
  • a US$1 billion budget to finance domestic tax credits to reimburse Japanese companies for their CER purchases.

Japan openly cut back their ODA budget to offset 100% of the international cost component of their Kyoto Protocol commitments (see this Japan Times article). The UN then failed to declare that Japan was breaching the Kyoto Protocol.

The US has learned from that history.

Every US contact I have assures me that every dollar that the UN/World Bank picks up in new revenues from any final Copenhagen agreement will be deducted from existing US commitments to the UN and other ultra-national development initiatives.

The huge challenge for Canada is that the implied incremental costs of the new global taxes are so large, relative to our current ODA spending, that we will be the only G8 nation unable to offset the new costs with ODA cuts—even though we already dedicate a higher percentage of our GDP to ODA than the US does. Almost 100% of EU27 ODA is tied to European direct investment in developing nations or Asian consumer product sales, particularly in the chemicals, pharmaceuticals and auto industries. Europe’s auto sector is much larger than North America’s, largely due to Asian and African export sales.

For these reasons, the quotation attributed to Alberta Minister Renner in today’s Edmonton Journal is a cause for concern: "As long as there’s limits on the amount of funds that would flow into an open market, I think we could live with that," Renner said. "There’s been talk all along to the degree of which we would participate in a North American or national market." 

Not sure what this means, but it could mean that Renner is now aware of what the Japan/US play really is.

Anyway, I can assure you that if/when the US and Japan cut existing ODA to offset any new commitments outlined in a final Copenhagen agreement, the EU27 and China will immediately deem that a breach—even though they let Japan get away with it so far.  This will launch trade wars which will have massive and potentially uncontrollable implications for Canada.

As an aside, Canadian negotiators should also note that President Obama has publicly stated his intent to design the US domestic offset system to ensure that it generates new revenues for large US agri-business. The President notified the industry of his desire to cut direct government subsidies to these businesses, while assuring them that they will not experience revenue losses—because the new US domestic cap and trade and offset system will replace government subsidies with offset credit revenues. 

By definition, this means that:

  • The US GHG Offset credit market will be dominated with "hot air", because the offset market will simply maintain funding for activities that are already underway and funded, at this time, by direct government subsidy. Most of the subsidies that Obama hopes to replace with GHG offset credit revenues are from programs that essentially pay US farmers not to farm.
  • The President simply proposes to shift agriculture subsidy costs form the US Treasury to families’ utility bills.

 

Posted in Aldyen Donnelly | Leave a comment

Alberta’s Wildrose leader is no shrinking violet

(Dec. 16, 2009) Danielle Smith is not entirely convinced there’s a climate-change problem. And that will make the many skeptics in her province happy. Continue reading

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment

Alberta’s Wildrose leader is no shrinking violet

Gary Mason
The Globe and Mail
December 16, 2009

Danielle Smith is not entirely convinced there’s a climate-change problem. And that will make the many skeptics in her province happy.

If recent polls are to be believed, Alberta’s four-decade-old Conservative government could be toppled in the next election – by an even more right-wing alternative.

Only in Alberta.

The Wildrose Alliance Party seems for real, however, even though it has only one MLA. Party leader Danielle Smith possesses an intelligence, charm and charisma that belies her days as a newspaper columnist. Her speeches and public writings are receiving more attention – and scrutiny. As such, remarks she made this week concerning the United Nations climate-change summit in Copenhagen caught many people’s attention.

In an address to the Canadian Club of Calgary, Ms. Smith urged Ottawa not to sign on to any accord in Copenhagen. Instead, she said, Canada and the provinces should find their own homegrown measures to slay the problem of rising greenhouse-gas emissions.

That is, if there’s a problem at all.

Ms. Smith, it appears, is not entirely convinced. And that will make the many climate skeptics in her province – and across the country, for that matter – deliriously happy. “The science isn’t settled,” Ms. Smith told her Canadian Club audience. “If we’re going to embark on this path, we’ve got to be darn sure that the science makes sense.” She quoted from Lawrence Soloman’s book The Deniers , which details studies that contradict the science supporting claims of man-made global warming.

The crowd lapped it up.

But Ms. Smith wasn’t done.

In an opinion piece that appeared in the Calgary Herald this week, Ms. Smith questioned spending billions of dollars on carbon-capture technology that “won’t yield results for decades,” denounced cap-and-trade schemes and carbon taxes and pretty much gave the thumbs down to UN plans to send billions to help developing countries cope with the impact of climate change.

As top-to-bottom denunciations of climate-change strategies go, it was quite impressive.

Not even Alberta Environment Minister Rob Renner denies the existence of global warming. Or that the art of extracting oil from Alberta’s oil sands contributes to it. And he’d like to do something about it, honestly. As long as it doesn’t hurt the economy. Not the most progressive outlook on climate change, admittedly. Yet, it seems almost Suzukian compared with the view taken by Ms. Smith.

For someone emerging as a major player on the Canadian political scene to come out and effectively question the existence of global warming, well, that takes more than a little chutzpah.

Or maybe just naiveté, of which I think Ms. Smith can certainly be accused.

Whether or not she accepts it, the world is moving on climate change. Achieving consensus will be difficult, but even reluctant joiners such as China and India now understand that the world’s economy will be powered, in part, by the changeover from fossil-based fuels to clean technologies.

They accept, too, that their countries are contributing to a carbon dioxide problem and that they’re going to need to address it sooner than later or risk facing the wrath of a world with which it hopes to trade.

If nothing else, U.S. President Barack Obama is driving a green agenda and is going to force trading partners such as Canada – and provinces such as Alberta – to play the game according to new, environmentally friendly American rules or risk losing billions in investment opportunities. Polluters need not apply.

So Ms. Smith can score easy points with like-minded and self-interested supporters if she wishes, getting rousing ovations with each skeptical utterance she makes. That’s fine, if not a little transparent. But, ultimately, it will be a position that hurts her province far more than it helps it.

To be fair, Ms. Smith isn’t saying there isn’t something Alberta could be doing to becoming greener – in the event this whole global warming thing turns out to be real. There are practical ways Albertans can reduce energy use and improve energy efficiency, she said this week. Tax incentives could be used to help individuals and businesses improve energy efficiency in their homes.

An idea, perhaps, borrowed from one of the many governments around the world that have been giving green tax breaks for years.

But most of these same governments recognize that sealing windows and doors isn’t going to get it done when it comes to reversing the impact of rising greenhouse gases. Then again, if you’re not sure there’s a problem to begin with, what’s the big deal?

Posted in Energy Probe News, The Deniers | Leave a comment

Copenhagen another costly UN failure?

(Dec. 14, 2009) No one really has any idea what climate change deal might come out of Copenhagen. While most Albertans probably sympathize with the general objective–burning less carbon-based fuel–there are two ways to get there: A sensible way which will probably work, and the political Copenhagen way which will prove to be another costly United Nations failure. Continue reading

Posted in The Deniers | Leave a comment