Posted by: Honest ABE | May 28, 2010

How Truth is Made

In the wikipedia article entitled, “Temperature Record of the past 1000 years,” the opening segment prominently states,

“Attention has tended to focus on the early work of Michael E. Mann, Bradley and Hughes (1998), whose “hockey stick” graph was featured in the 2001 United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change report. The methodology and data sets used in creating the Mann et al. (1998) version of the hockey stick graph are disputed by Stephen McIntyre and Ross McKitrick, but the graph is overall acknowledged by the scientific community.”

This statement, especially the apparently unsourced part that I bolded, struck me as….inaccurate.

And so I scrolled down, found the article namedropping Michael “Hide the Decline” Mann, Phil “the Dog Ate my Homework” Jones, and other “scientists” of climategate fame like Keith Briffa – I suppose they must be the “overall acknowledgment of the scientific community.”

As if that echo chamber wasn’t bad enough, I then looked at the main article, the one on the hockey stick controversy, and in particular, the section on the Wegman Report, since I knew that was an actual independent critique of Mann’s hockey stick – which means wikipedia must immediately discredit it.

The first criticism, that the Wegman Report wasn’t “formally” peer-reviewed had two sources, suggesting it wasn’t reviewed at all, and falsely claiming it was reviewed after the report was finalized.

But that is not what first caught my attention, of the remaining five points of criticism, three were sourced to, you guessed it, William Connolley’s compatriots at Real Climate. Only one of those points of criticism was directly attributed to Mann, the author of the hockey stick, giving the impression that this criticism was from the “scientific community that overall acknowledges the hockey stick graph.”

Another point of criticism was from John Quiggin’s blog, who astute readers may remember as the climate alarmist/wikipedian that Connolley et all use as a “reliable source” for their various nonsense (quick and amusing refresher here).

This means that the only point of criticism, which isn’t complete nonsense or sourced to Connolley and his friends, and that is from Gerald North and that point was:

Gerald North, chairman of the National Research Council panel that studied the hockey-stick issue and produced the report Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the Last 2,000 Years, stated the politicians at the hearing at which the Wegman report was presented “were twisting the scientific information for their own propaganda purposes. The hearing was not an information gathering operation, but rather a spin machine.”[52] In testimony when asked if he disputed the methodology conclusions of Wegman’s report, he stated that “No, we don’t. We don’t disagree with their criticism. In fact, pretty much the same thing is said in our report. But again, just because the claims are made, doesn’t mean they are false.”

Did you read that carefully? Okay, now what was the criticism of the Wegman report? North said that the politicians were trying to twist the scientific information, but that is not what he said about the scientists who composed the Wegman Report. In fact, his team did not disagree with the criticisms that the Wegman Report articulated.

Umm….so what exactly was the criticism?

So basically, the only “valid” criticisms (I didn’t look at such drivel), were sourced entirely to the blogs of Connolley’s friends. You would think with the thousands of collective edits that they’ve had that they could’ve come up with something better, but such partisan advocates are rarely competent individuals, because their conclusions are predetermined – “facts” are merely tools that need to be manufactured to prove their point.

In closing, if these people have managed to amateurishly mangle so much of such a small section then what else has their advocacy rotted?

Other than wikipedia’s reputation…




  1. as anyone can edit it will be the folks who have an agenda and no outside lives who get the exposure, check out the terrorist MrMandela, try correcting that and the word “terrorist” will go quickly, it is a sham.

  2. It is even worse than that because the admins who enforce the area are “volunteers” which predictably enough means most are there on an agenda.

  3. I no longer trust anything even slightly controversial on Wikipedia.

    BTW, wasn’t it Kevin ‘Travesty’ Trenberth rather than Keith Briffa?

  4. Ah thanks, you are absolutely correct, I must’ve gotten the two K’s mixed up. In reality, Briffa was one of the more reasonable ones – got duped by some of the others though.

    I found a really great EA email though thanks to your correction and I’ll write up something on it soon.

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: