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.