Posted by: Honest ABE | May 23, 2010

Ballsy Claim

One of the reasons why I’m skeptical of global warming is because I look not only at sources but at the methodologies and potential causes for error behind them.

Recently MastCell, generally a supporter of William Connolley and the gang, promoted the myth that the global warming articles are actually accurate or “high quality.” How did he do this? Well, obviously he linked to a study claiming to show how good featured articles are on wikipedia.

In general, the study found that slightly less than half of the “featured articles” on wikipedia didn’t meet their own criteria, but, of course, global warming was one of the articles that did meet wikipedia’s standards. Now, notwithstanding impotent whining about left-wing bias at universities, impotent not due to that reality, but due to the left not caring when such bias falsely promotes their worldview; I looked at the methods used in this study:

To this end, scholars were asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of Wikipedia featured articles within their area of expertise.

So the obvious question is, who was asked to evaluate the quality and accuracy of the global warming article?

None other than David Archer, climate change alarmist and former(?) colleague of William Connolley at the Real Climate blog.

Ah what a small world!

Chalk it up as yet another study, upon a minute of extra examination, which makes the claims of the climate alarmists even more dubious.




  1. Thanks for a great post.

    Why is it that I’m not surprised?


  2. Thanks Alex,

    The global warming article is obviously pretty poorly written and presented – and not even from a skeptic’s point of view. The thing is that nobody wants to bother trying to fix any of the articles because they’ll just get reverted and chased away.

    Connolley may be incompetent, but it doesn’t take a lot of intelligence to destroy the work of others through obstinance and thuggery.

  3. I believe that’s what climate modelers call a “positive feedback loop”.

  4. Correct and a common occurrence wherever you look at AGW research in detail.

    An interesting follow up question would be to ask MastCell how he learned about the study.

    Did he just discover it by searching for it or was it pushed at him privately?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: