No, though you’ve provided an excellent example of a straw man argument!

I said that eventually humans will run out of fossil fuels, and you try to say that I’m admitting some sort of agenda. WTF? It’s a fact; use of fossil fuels will eventually outstrip production, since there’s a limited amount around to be drilled. Maybe not in our LIFETIMES, but damn, it’s a fact.

And no, I never said anything about the end goal of pollution-reduction justifying lying. Of course, that also begs the question of whether it’s lying in the first place, which has yet to be shown.

Essentially all climate scientists agree that global warming exists, though the exact rate, whether it’s anthropogenic, etc. aren’t proven, sure. But anthropogenic global warming is the most plausible theory, and so until significant evidence is found to contradict that theory (and no, there isn’t significant contradictory evidence), it’ll be the accepted one.

The problem isn’t the science, it’s the politics. I don’t think it’s OK for the government to lie, and I hate taxes just as much as you do. But I do think that regardless of whether there’s global warming or not, we ought to develop means of cleaner energy.

I just think it’s unfair that Connolley gets demonized for giving the scientific understanding because of the political overtones to the subject of his contribution.

This has nothing to do with environmentalism except the fact that it hurts the cause. This is about money and power. Plain and simple. You should be outraged that fraudulent science has given a black eye to real environmentalism!

General user info
Username: William M. Connolley
User groups: autoreviewer, rollbacker
First edit: Feb 07, 2003 11:46:59
Unique articles edited: 5,502
Average edits per page: 7.29
Total edits (including deleted): 40,118
Deleted edits: 1,301
Live edits: 38,817

Logs
Users blocked: 2029
Pages deleted: 510
Pages moved: 66
Pages patrolled: 120
Pages protected: 173
Pages restored: 18
Users unblocked: 223
Pages unprotected: 29
Files uploaded: 146

Top edited articles
Article
•1050 - Global_warming
•334 - Global_warming_controversy
•297 - Greenhouse_effect
•242 - Global_cooling
•231 - Intergovernmental_Panel_on_Climate_Change
•226 - Greenhouse_gas
•191 - Kyoto_Protocol
•188 - List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scienti…
•183 - Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change
•177 - Temperature_record_of_the_2nd_millennium

“Whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, humans ought to not pollute as much. Whether or not you like it, someday we WILL run out of fossil fuels.”

So then by your quote above I surmise that you are admitting that the global warming nuts have an agenda. I also suppose you feel the end (polluting less) justifies the means (lying to the American people and creating an armageddon-like fairy tale)

That’s a slippery-slope you support there, my friend. What else do you believe it’s okay for the government to lie about and collect our tax money in the name of???

The Wikipedia that was written, by many many hands or the National Post article which was written by one guy, and among *many* other flaws:

a) claimed that William Connolley edited 5,428 climate articles

- he didn’t that’s the total number of articles edited; there’s probably not even that many climate articles in the whole wikipedia.

b) claimed that he banned whoever he wanted

- he didn’t, banning people is done according to a process, and has procedures for contesting it which requires lots of other admins to get involved; it’s not possible for him to ban people without other admins picking up on it. If he was doing anything like that Connolley would have been permanently desysoped and *banned*. (He actually has been desysoped but that was because of an unrelated and pretty minor incorrect use of tools on a ‘cold fusion’ article about physics.) He’s still allowed to edit because he hasn’t really done anything very wrong. If ANY of the claims in the NP article were true, he would have been banned outright long ago. You wouldn’t believe how scrutinised admins are on the wikipedia!

c) claimed that he removed articles at whim

- that’s just about possible, but *very* unlikely, and if he had, there’s a process for contesting such deletions, other admins would also almost certainly have become aware; and deleted articles are still visible to other admins. Deleting articles is a very normal part of being an admin; there’s a lot of garbage articles created by vandals and so forth.

d) “Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.”

- LOL, that’s the funniest of all. Admins don’t have any special editorial control; in fact they’re *banned* from using their administrative powers for doing that.

In other words, this article makes several huge claims, none of which are actually true.

By way of contrast the theory of anthropogenic global warming also makes claims which *most* scientists think are *probably* true; but that they have evidence for.

Where is the edits and evidence that Connolley abused his administration in the way the NP claims? In all seriousness there isn’t any. It’s a puff-piece. It sounds plausible, but when you look at it carefully it falls apart.

Have a nice day!

The hockey stick may be bogus, but it’s not as bogus as you think. There’s a midway truth if you stop and carefully examine the science, and that’s what Connolley and the rest want to show, just they get painted as pushing a ZOMG HOCKEY STICK campaign because of the people who think there’s nothing going at all, because otherwise people don’t LISTEN. Whether or not global warming is anthropogenic, humans ought to not pollute as much. Whether or not you like it, someday we WILL run out of fossil fuels. By that time I damn hope we’ve got decent solar, hydro and wind power.

Are you kidding? He has removed the midievil warm period refferences in wikipedia and has replaced images with Michael Mann’s fictitious “Hockey Stick”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medieval_warm_period

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley

He has made over 40,033 edits and counting!

http://toolserver.org/~soxred93/count/index.php?name=William+M.+Connolley&lang=en&wiki=wikipedia