Friday
Apr232010
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Fun and games at Wiki
Apr 23, 2010 Books Climate: HSI Media There's lots of fun and games on the discussion page for the Hockey Stick Illusion at Wiki.
Apr 23, 2010 Books Climate: HSI Media
Reader Comments (45)
Wiki is a technology, not a place!
[BH adds - except when I'm in a hurry!]
God Connelly is pathetic is he not?
Where are the prefects when you need them?
They have [i]some[/i] valid points. I bough the book, read it cover to cover, followed up a proportion of the references. In my opinion it's excellent on the science and narrative level and I've said to in my review.
However, there just isn't much in the way of independent coverage or review that fits with the standard for references. Sad but true, and I have no idea what could be done about it.
Someone has put the folllowing in:
'What does "replication" mean? That is a potentially libelous statement until you clarify that -- it might be interpreted as "plagiarism." That's how I read it because I don't know anything about this. I'm taking it down for now.'
Doesn't know what replication means and freely admits to being ignorant!!!
I thought Wikipedia had removed Connolley for misusing his position.
Clearly this is wrong but it is too bad for Wikipedia that it hasn't cleaned up its act.
Your book is great Andrew and it is no surprise that Connolley et al should fear you. Take it as a compliment.
Perhaps it should be call wikiyaboohoo? An exert:
Connolley only says it "has the usual problems" and identifies a typo that has since been fixed, there's no explanation. It looks like vandalism to me, Connolley appears to have a beef with the book itself, he is the one with the POV issue. I would revert the POV tag if I knew how, perhaps someone else would be kind enough. Also is there a way to report Connolleys vandalism, he seems to be all over many 'climate change' related articles, his point of view on this subject might be over-represented on Wikipedia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.58.243.130 (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
I disagree. There is no need for this POV tag. Bundsche (talk) 05:22, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
You're scibaby and you're banned William M. Connolley (talk) 20:28, 10 April 2010 (UTC)
I scrolled quickly through those awful screens of discussion. Some sense there, and also an awful lot of demented over-reaction to what I would see as neutral and informative descriptions of the Bishop's book. It all gives, like the CRU-files did, insight into a rather unpleasant sub-culture.
Bishop,
Does you book address this alarmist zombie argument that appears in the wiki article:
"More than a dozen subsequent scientific papers, using various statistical techniques and combinations of proxy records, produced reconstructions broadly similar to the original MBH hockey-stick graph, with variations in how flat the pre-20th century "shaft" appears. Almost all of them supported the IPCC conclusion that the warmest decade in 1000 years was probably that at the end of the 20th century."
If the wiki text should be updated to reflect that.
[BH adds: It does. I don't feel it's appropriate for me to edit an article about my own work though]
[Snip - manners]. He has been appointed to take care of the HSI because the book is no.1 bestseller, at the moment, in the UK Amazon website in the global warming section.
He should stick to boating or rowing or something like that.
Oh dearie dear - trouble in monoculture paradise?
Says it all really, doesn't it!
Obviouisly, our little "Stoat" is back from his suspension and up to his usual censorious tricks.
To me, this is a documented microcosm of what Steve McIntyre has gone through - for which he has my highest admiration.
We've come so far, yet have let to lay a glove on the incumbant political class. Their beliefs will not shift; they have too much face to lose.
For what it's worth, I don't think political AGW worship will fall until our financial system does.
Which is getting closer...
Like any other despot - WC (apt initials ;0) will hang himself with his own petard.
We only have to wait and watch his ever desperate censorship that he thinks he can get away with.
When in fact - he is simply digging a bigger and bigger hole for himself.
Could everyone please lay off the name-calling. Thanks.
It's articles like this that raise rounds of laughter when you say "In Wikipedia, .... "
Wikipedia is the big loser in this. I use it to get a feeling for a topic and then do follow up. However, this particular item isn't even laughable. Just pathetic.
I really love
Administrators: when sanctioning an editor for disruption to an article under probation, please be sure to record the action in the appropriate log. The log is linked here, under "decision and log" on the sanction's row in the table.</I>
Like that means anything. Sigh!
Ah, cock-up on the html front.
"Speaking of IPCC... who are they? Try to avoid acronyms to enhance clarity.--Jp07 (talk) 00:35, 8 April 2010 (UTC"
Was supposed to be in block quote!
[BH adds - fixed now]
Fascinating.There seems to be a misperception that the sceptic viewpoint is a minority view. This is not the case.
http://a-place-to-stand.blogspot.com/2010/02/catastrophic-warming-scientific.html
Apologies for being off-topic but you may be interested in this from the Sydney Morning Herald:
Climate scientist sues for libel over 'poisonous' articles
It seems that WMC is about to get punted off Wiki again.
Nobody is going to read this trash, except the usual suspects. Clearly writer and software engineer Connelley is the AGW Prefect of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith.
Bish, any chance you could write up the story of the edits, think your incisive summary would help!!
After reading the edit page from your link I flipped to the article itself and was shocked to find it was 1/50th the size
Also on the discussion page for the Wiki entry for this blog.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Bishop_Hill_(blog)
I found it funny that Connolley says he has not read/bought the book and that his role in this saga is not minor.
The intro sez, that M&M have comprehensively discredited the hockey stick. That is, obviously, not the mainstream (science) viewpoint. So I don't see how the book can be considered other than fringe (I notice I get more refs in the index than that James Annan. Perhaps I should buy a copy :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 07:41, 22 April 2010 (UTC)
I think it is not wise to interfere in a book review if you have not read it and if you are one of the actors.
Very funny. Connolley reminds me of Bruce Lee flailing around in all directions and taking on a hundred enemies. Enter the Stoat, indeed.
Is it ok to trash the facts in an online article in pursuit of the cause, is it ok to 'hide the decline in pursuit of the cause? (etc.)
No - it is dishonest - and it is hard to be polite about book burners.
Interestingly, many such people possess an intense love of animals, if not humans.
Here's an example of the recent return to dangerous ideas, similar to book burning, the ominously titled 'Optimum Population Trust':
http://www.optimumpopulation.org/opt.aboutus.html
...all the usual Lovelock etc. patrons.
I have now attempted to send 12 (twelve) copies of the book to my friends via Amazon because I was so impressed wtih it. Unfortunately, Amazon is canceling all the orders, claiming it can no longer obtain copies. I would think lots of sales may have been lost. Still, a fantastic book.
I had HSI on my Amazon wishlist. It has the "Temporarily Out of Stock" tag permanently!
Re: the snip, Let me rephrase...
Connolley is a censorious gentleman.
You can't trust Wiki articles worth a damn, but the discussion pages are VERY illuminating. I hope they can be entered into evidence when the time comes.
Climate scientist sues for libel over 'poisonous' articles
Classic third stage KR -- anger. The judge should laugh at him and that will lead to depression. Seen it too many times.
Anybody see bigcitylib of late?
IanH - After reading the edit page from your link I flipped to the article itself and was shocked to find it was 1/50th the size
As at 1500hrs Australian Eastern time, a quick copy to Word gives the stats as (excluding contents and top preamble):
Article:
3 pages
908 words
6,998 characters with spaces
36 paragraphs
105 lines
Discussion:
37 pages
17,761 words
101,391 characters with spaces
395 paragraphs
1,452 lines
Not a 50th, nearer a 10 to 15th but indicative of the zealotry of the Wiki true believers nevertheless.
Completely OT pedantry: Darce, a petard is a small bomb used for blowing castle doors in, therefore you can't be hanged with it. ("Hoist" is the past participle of an obsolete word "hoise", meaning to raise).
Mildly OT: I ordered HSI from my local bookshop (in UK). I collected it 22 hours later, as the wholesalers had it in stock and delivered overnight. Maybe if US readers tried ordering through their bookshops they might build up enough head of steam to get them imported? Probably the costs might be too high, though.
On Topic (at last!): To call WC a stoat is grossly insulting, and shouldn't be done. You can work out the subtext yourselves.
And around and round they go,
Where they'll stop nobody knows...
"To call WC a stoat is grossly insulting, and shouldn't be done. You can work out the subtext yourselves."
I believe that is what WC sometimes uses as a nom de plume. It is also the name of hid blog. I don't think it is used as an insult in this context.
A few months ago during the Wiki fund raising effort, I emailed the corporate office that (a) I like Wikipedia, (b) I have been a contributor to many articles, (c) I would like to contribute $$$ to the effort, but.....
.... that I would not give one penny until Wikipedia did something about the abusive and disgusting misuse of the Wikipedia editorial process and intent by William Connolley.
I inferred from their two written responses that Connolley might have been be a very serious hindrance to the Wiki fund raising effort, since they knew exactly whom I was talking about and tried to make the case that he had been suitably reprimanded for previous abuses. But I still sent them no money, and told them why.
I wonder who wrote this:
"Connolly's edits are comparable to those made to the 'evolution' article by people with a religious faith, for the non-believer the evidence is not compelling at all, there are too many holes, both side obviously see views opposite to theirs as not being 'neutral'. Connolley and others argue in many 'climate change' related articles on Wikipedia that the AGW skeptic viewpoint is simply invalid because it's a minority view, yet he is a prolific Wikipedia contributor always suppressing alternative positions then claiming there's no debate. He routinely disrupts articles opposing his view and lost his Wikipedia admin status because of it, he is incapable of neutrality.
The book may expose valid shortcomings in the science behind the production of the 'hockey stick' graph which appears to suppress both the 'Medieval Warm Period' and 'Little Ice Age', the elimination of this historically documented climate variation should of course be based on sound science, if the proxy based science has weaknesses then it and the computer models based on it should be treated with skepticism and thoroughly tested. A genuine scientist would be open to criticism of their methods, it allows the science to improve. MWP/LIA deniers like Connolley seem to either believe there's nothing left to learn, or more likely they have a preconceived view and select data to suit it (ie. not neutral).
The book is a reaction to the failure of the climate science community to adequately test their own work, or allow those skeptical of it to test it. It contains a factual historical record of events leading up to publication of the 'Hockey Stick' by the IPCC. Much of the record was (rather fortuitously) confirmed by the scientists involved when CRU emails were leaked in 2009. Clearly the book will not have a neutral point of view, but this article can.
There is a general POV problem with climate science related articles on Wikipedia, Connolley and other followers of the AGW religion are responsible. This is still a very active area of research, there is still much to learn, there is extensive debate and the science is not settled. Wikipedia has been hijacked by the WMP/LIA deniers who seek to further discredit any work that goes against their faith. "—
Indeed, I had thought that WC had been banished to 'utter darkness' but it seems not! The last paragraph of the 'Synopsis' (! Aren't they pretentious!) section, tries to smother your book with the usual suspected 'reconstructios'', without mentioning', of course, their incestuous nature. How sad! How passe!
Sounds like Wiki really should flush WC -- ah, I mean dismiss him. :)
Disputin:
Shakespeare, Hamlet:
"For tis the sport to have the enginer Hoist with his owne petar".
Or blow himself up.
I believe a stoat is a close relative to a weasel.
Don Pablo & Michael.
Quite so, however stoats and weasels are weasily distinguished, because they are stoataly different.
Sorry.
Disputin,
You mustela few more like that, they're funny ferret least a few seconds :)
The same editing tactics occur in Wiki articles on Soviet war crimes and occupation of Eastern European countries.
All this reminds me of The Wind in the Willows.
'Do you mean to tell me,' shouted the Rat, thumping with his little fist upon the table, 'that you've heard nothing about the Stoats and Weasels?'
What, the Wild Wooders?' cried Toad, trembling in every limb. 'No, not a word! What have they been doing?'
'—And how they've been and taken Toad Hall?'
"Also... who is Phillip Bratby"
LMAO! Blimey! Do this lot ever read the comments on WUWT, BH, Daily Mail, Telegraph etc! Look out Dr Phill they are after you