Comments on: Juckes and the Rain in Maine http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/ by Steve McIntyre Thu, 31 May 2012 08:43:16 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.com/ By: John A http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72159 Fri, 08 Dec 2006 10:43:27 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72159 Actually Connelley is an administrator on Wikipedia, and woe betide anyone who contradicts him on global warming or the Hockey Stick.

You want to see something funny? Connelley created the article “The Science is settled” by claiming that it was a “slogan” created by skeptics. What then happened was the number of quotations of scientists and politicians making that or an equivalent claim got longer and longer.

Connelley’s response? He banned my IP address for 3 hours for “trolling”, and deleted all of my changes from the discussion and the edit history, so it looked as though nothing had changed. When I tried to discuss why he was deleting history in defiance of Wikipedia’s own rules by writing to his talk page, he deleted those as well (another WP no-no) with a catty remark that “this wasn’t CA”. When I mentioned this on Wikipediareview.com, an admin from WP noticed and made Connelley undelete the history (although Connelley only undeleted half).

Then as the list got longer and longer and another editor noted that he had inserted “original research” that could not be verified and deleted that, Connelley signalled defeat by suggesting I mark the article “Article for Deletion”, and never touched the article again.

Connelley’s style is passive-aggressive and lots of editors have complained that he reverts articles with no reason given, and that he promotes an extremely narrow point of view (NPOV in Wikispeak), none of which is any surprise to readers of CA about the behavior of the Hockey Team.

]]> By: Brooks Hurd http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72158 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 19:41:56 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72158 Re: 9,

Once RC person William Connelley was made a Wiki editor, all pretence of Wiki being a neutral source of climate science information vanished.

]]> By: chrisl http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72157 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 10:20:43 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72157 The wikipedia quickstep
1. Get your “mate” to edit the articles
2. Quote wikipedia as “evidence”
= to be taken with a grain of salt

]]> By: PHE http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72156 Thu, 07 Dec 2006 07:42:47 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72156 I was being a bit over-cynical in my previous comment. Its OK to reference non-peer reviewed articles – and press stories for that matter – as long as they are in line with the ‘scientific consensus’, and right.

]]> By: interested observer http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72155 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:36:08 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72155 Junk Science Blues (key of E)

I got the junk science blues
Yeah, I got the junk science blues
Don’ wanna be wearin’ my shoes
Can’t find no global warmin’ clues
My proxy data’s screwy
My stats have all gone blooey
Mann, I got the junk science blues.

]]> By: Jean S http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72154 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 22:02:08 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72154 re #8:
New method, overfitting proxy data with temperature using neural networks, shows it clearly.

Who gave you my secret preprint ;)

]]> By: Mark T http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72153 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:46:11 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72153 I haven’t heard bender mention the double standard count recently. Perhaps he overflowed his stack?

Mark

]]> By: jae http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72152 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:43:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72152 9: There’s another double standard for bender’s list.

]]> By: PHE http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72151 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 21:21:43 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72151 The Hockey Team is always going on about the fact that only ‘peer-reviewed’ articles should be taken seriously. So interesting to see that on a current article on RC by Mann and Schmidt (A linkage between the LIA and Gulf Stream?), there are 3 reference links to Wikipedia! – the first as an example of ‘intense debate in the scientifc community’.

]]> By: UC http://climateaudit.org/2006/12/05/juckes-and-the-rain-in-maine/#comment-72150 Wed, 06 Dec 2006 20:57:36 +0000 http://www.climateaudit.org/?p=954#comment-72150

It can take several months before a paper that has been accepted for publication is printed.

Yes. And we are in hurry, as Man in his recent paper (Man et al 2008a) shows. New method, overfitting proxy data with temperature using neural networks, shows it clearly.

]]>