| |
 |
|
|
Science Forum Index » Environment Forum » Engineering Opinion At Wikipedia...
Page 1 of 1
|
| Author |
Message |
| 00ZBN... |
 Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
May 3 2008
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03/who-is-william-connolley-solomon.aspx
Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential
person in the global warming debate.
He has a PhD in mathematics and worked as a climate modeler but those
accomplishments don't explain his influence - PhDs are not uncommon and,
in any case, he comes from the mid-level ranks in the British Antarctic
Survey, the agency for which he worked until recently.
He was the Parish Councillor for the village of Coton in the U.K., his
website tells us, and a school governor there, too, but neither of those
accomplishments are a claim to fame in the wider world. Neither are his
five failed attempts to attain public office as a local candidate for
South Cambridgeshire District Council and Cambridgeshire County Council
as a representative for the Green Party.
But Connolley is a big shot on Wikipedia, which honours him with an
extensive biography, an honour Wikipedia did not see fit to bestow on
his boss at the British Antarctic Survey. Or on his boss's's boss, or on
his boss's boss's boss, or on his boss's boss's boss's boss, none of
whose opinions seemingly count for much, despite their impressive
accomplishments. William Connolley's opinions, in contrast, count for a
great deal at Wikipedia, even though some might not think them
particularly worthy of note. "It is his view that there is a consensus
in the scientific community about climate change topics such as global
warming, and that the various reports from the Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change (IPCC) summarize this consensus," states his Wikipedia
page, in the section called "Biography."
Connolley is not only a big shot on Wikipedia, he's a big shot at
Wikipedia -- an Administrator with unusual editorial clout. Using that
clout, this 40-something scientist of minor relevance gets to tear down
scientists of great accomplishment. Because Wikipedia has become the
single biggest reference source in the world, and global warming is one
of the most sought after subjects, the ability to control information on
Wikipedia by taking down authoritative scientists is no trifling matter.
One such scientist is Fred Singer, the First Director of the U.S.
National Weather Satellite Service, the recipient of a White House
commendation for his early design of space satellites; the recipient of
a NASA commendation for research on particle clouds -- in short, a
scientist with dazzling achievements who is everything Connolley is not.
Under Connolley's supervision, Singer is relentlessly smeared, and has
been for years, as a kook who believes in Martians and a hack in the pay
of the oil industry. When a smear is inadequate, or when a fair-minded
Wikipedian tries to correct a smear, Connolley and his cohorts are there
to widen the smear or remove the correction, often rebuking the
Wikipedian in the process.
Wikipedia is full of rules that editors are supposed to follow, as well
as a code of civility. Those rules and codes don't apply to Connolley,
or to those he favours.
"Peisers crap shouldn't be in here," Connolley wrote several weeks ago,
in berating a Wikipedian colleague during an "edit war," as they're
called. In such a war, rival sides change the content of a Wikipedia
page from one competing version to another, often with bewildering
speed. (Two people, landing on the same page seconds apart, might obtain
entirely different information.) In the Peiser case, a Wikipedian
stopped a prolonged war by freezing a continually changing page, to
prevent more alterations until the dispute was settled. As occurs on
such occasions, readers are alerted that Wikipedians are warring over
the page, and that Wikipedia was not endorsing the version of the page
that had been frozen. To Connolley's chagrin, however, the version that
was frozen cast doubt on claims of a consensus on climate change.
Although this was done within Wikipedia rules, Connolley intervened to
revert the page and ensure Wikipedia readers saw only what he wanted
them to see.
Peiser is Benny Peiser, a distinguished UK scientist who had
convincingly refuted a study by Naomi Oreskes that claimed to have found
no scientific papers at odds with the conventional wisdom on climate
change. The Oreskes study -- cited by Al Gore in his film, An
Inconvenient Truth -- is an article of faith to many global warming
doomsayers and guarded from criticism by Connolley et al. Peiser and
other critics of Oreskes's study, meanwhile, get demeaned.
Connolley and his cohorts don't just edit pages of scientists actively
involved in the global warming debate. Scientists who work in unrelated
fields, but who have findings that indirectly bolster a critique of
climate change orthodoxy, will also get smeared. So will non-scientists
and organizations that he disagrees with. Any reference, anywhere among
Wikipedia's 2.5-million English-language pages, that casts doubt on the
consequences of climate change will be bent to Connolley's bidding.
Connolley no longer works as a climate modeller - he now works as a
software engineer for a company called Cambridge Silicon Radio. And as
an engineer of opinion at Wikipedia.
--
Warmest Regards
Bonzo
"Let me say it plainly: The environmental movement has been taken over
by anti-capitalist radicals who are using it to wage war against
capitalism and campaign for liberal Democrats. Protecting the
environment is now number three, or lower, on their list of priorities."
Joe Bast, President, Heartland Institute, One-time Ardent
Environmentalist, Has seen it from both sides. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| ... |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 6, 7:59 pm, "00ZBN" <00... at (no spam) ddooo.com> wrote:
[snip]
Wikipedia is a piece of trash. Jimmy Wales (a former pornographer)
never intended Wikipedia to be more than a piece of trash when he
founded Wikipedia in 2001. William M. Connolley is in good company.
If you want to get some idea of how trashy Wikipedia really is, look
into the history of the (now deleted) entry for Archimedes Plutonium,
a known psychopath.
If you look at the personal webpage for William M. Connolley you see
that he has a family to support. He has virtually no income. William
M. Connolley is no different than a prostitute desperately trying to
feed children.
If you really want Connolley to go away send him cash. He really needs
it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| kT... |
| Posted: Tue May 06, 2008 9:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
On May 6, 10:47 pm, d.... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
Quote: On May 6, 7:59 pm, "00ZBN" <00... at (no spam) ddooo.com> wrote:
May 3 2008
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03...
Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most influential
person in the global warming debate.
[snip]
Wikipedia is a piece of trash. Jimmy Wales (a former pornographer)
never intended Wikipedia to be more than a piece of trash when he
founded Wikipedia in 2001. William M. Connolley is in good company.
Uh-huh. Do you have any idea what Wiki is worth, you know, market
value in dollars or stock? Ha hahaha hahhahahha hahah ah ... losers. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| James... |
| Posted: Wed May 07, 2008 9:33 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"kT" <cosmic at (no spam) lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:XfsUj.631$PA4.338 at (no spam) newsfe06.lga...
Quote: Peter Webb wrote:
"kT" <cosmic at (no spam) lifeform.org> wrote in message
news:711b4588-d98c-4ea5-8d83-34d5d6948330 at (no spam) f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
On May 6, 10:47 pm, d.... at (no spam) hotmail.com wrote:
On May 6, 7:59 pm, "00ZBN" <00... at (no spam) ddooo.com> wrote:
May 3 2008
http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2008/05/03...
Next to Al Gore, William Connolley may be the world's most
influential
person in the global warming debate.
[snip]
Wikipedia is a piece of trash. Jimmy Wales (a former pornographer)
never intended Wikipedia to be more than a piece of trash when he
founded Wikipedia in 2001. William M. Connolley is in good company.
Uh-huh. Do you have any idea what Wiki is worth, you know, market
value in dollars or stock? Ha hahaha hahhahahha hahah ah ... losers.
Zero.
Its a non-profit charity. Its like asking what the Red Cross is worth
in stock.
I kid you not, Wikipedia is valued in the billions, in terms of name
recognition, visitors, content, all metrics considered, if they were
suddenly to go public and/or commercial. Google it out yourself.
From a purely scientific perspective, wikipedia is HUGE.
And it's only just getting started.
Who'd wanna buy into lies? You I suppose. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| V-for-Vendicar... |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 12:15 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
"Claudius Denk" <claudiusdenk at (no spam) sbcglobal.net> wrote
Quote: If all gasses are greenhouse gasses then it kind of makes the claims
of the global warming cult seem kind of thin doesn't it?
And if all dogs are cats then what does that do to the field of biological
taxonomy? |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Whata Fool... |
| Posted: Sat May 17, 2008 11:59 pm |
|
|
|
Guest
|
William Asher <gcnp58 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: Whata Fool <whata at (no spam) fool.ami> wrote in
news:08ht24t124mh424a35asfarcs5itveobu5 at (no spam) 4ax.com:
William Asher <gcnp58 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
This of course has zero relevance to atmospheric radiative transfer.
And atmospheric radiative transfer is omni-diectional everyplace,
and that makes the net transfer upward to space.
There should be math that treats the whole problem, not just
a layer by layer treatment. The great mass of the air is where
the problem becomes simplified, the GHGs temperatures can't remain
different than the air they are in for long.
As long as there is water on the planet, evaporation is the
dominant natural thermal transfer, with conduction and convection
still ahead of radiative transfer at room temperature or below.
The power of evaporation is evident even to a blacksmith,
it only takes an ounce or so of water to cool several kilograms
of red hot steel.
It is the freezing point of water and the vapor pressure
that ultimately controls temperature regimes in the presence
of sufficient water, maybe you would like to calculate the
temperature regime of Venus even if water covers the whole
surface, what is the boiling point of water at a few hundred PSI?
Foo-foo:
Excellent idea but there is one eentsy-beentsy problem with your theory
about how evaporation is the way the planet cools. If evaporation were
the way the planet actually cooled to space, not just moved heat around
in the atmosphere, Earth would have been a dry dessicated lifeless husk
billions of years ago.
You should read up a bit about what happened to water on Venus, and why
it didn't happen on Earth. Start here:
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/Solar/venusenv.html#c3
that, and knowning that the scale height for nearly all of the water
vapor in Earth's atmosphere is around 6 km, should give you enough clues
to know why it's not just freezing point and boiling point.
Other than those two details (details, really, that any middle/high-
school student would have overlooked so don't feel bad), this is a fine
display of your scientific prowess. All skeptics ought to be proud to
have a thinker like you "on their side."
You are avoiding the issue, I didn't suggest there is water
on Venus, just that the temperature could still be in the many hundred
degree range if water covered the surface of the planet.
The temperature and pressure could be about that inside a typical
power plant boiler, with very little evaporative cooling.
The surface temperature of Earth is very dependent on water,
which is the very reason there is UHI.
Radiative transfer is the only way the Earth ultimately cools,
so GHGs should be viewed as providing a large part of the cooling.
Being fixated on GHGs as a warming process does not provide
the way to consider the whole picture. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Whata Fool... |
| Posted: Sun May 18, 2008 12:02 am |
|
|
|
Guest
|
William Asher <gcnp58 at (no spam) yahoo.com> wrote:
Quote: "John M." <john_howard_morgan at (no spam) hotmail.co.uk> wrote in
news:b436cfa3-2e33-4c34-b4cc-63b4a71af355 at (no spam) 56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com:
I get the impression he is fairly unschooled - in science at least.
The curious thing is, he won't get off the pot - just keeps
(bull)shitting and (bull)shitting and (bull)shitting..........
He's not the most interesting skeptic here, he basically just asks you to
explain things you already did, or asks you to agree or disagree with
ill-phrased propositions. The "delusional physics" ones, who actually
propose goofy ideas, are much more fun.
Are you two experts on people, why is it that AGW nuts talk more
about other people than they do about the sciences involved in climate
change. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
Page 1 of 1
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
The time now is Sat Aug 30, 2008 12:05 am
|
|