Did Wikipedia destroy all references to the Medieval Warm Period?

The fact that the climate warming ideologues are capable of any lie and any intellectual fraud to advance their scheme does not mean that they actually have committed any lie or fraud of which they are accused. Lawrence Solomon at The National Post makes a bombshell charge so extreme that I’m going to doubt it until I see evidence. Solomon so far provides none.

His claim is that William Connolley, a British scientist and Green Party activist, over a period of several years, altered or created thousands of articles at Wikipedia to advance the global warming orthodoxy, while he eliminated 500 articles that put manmade global warming into doubt. In particular, says Solomon, Connolley systematically dropped the Medieval Warm Period into the memory hole:

Connolley took control of all things climate in the most used information source the world has ever known—Wikipedia. Starting in February 2003, just when opposition to the claims of the band members were beginning to gel, Connolley set to work on the Wikipedia site. He rewrote Wikipedia’s articles on global warming, on the greenhouse effect, on the instrumental temperature record, on the urban heat island, on climate models, on global cooling. On Feb. 14, he began to erase the Little Ice Age; on Aug.11, the Medieval Warm Period. In October, he turned his attention to the hockey stick graph. He rewrote articles on the politics of global warming and on the scientists who were skeptical of the band. Richard Lindzen and Fred Singer, two of the world’s most distinguished climate scientists, were among his early targets, followed by others that the band especially hated, such as Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, authorities on the Medieval Warm Period.

All told, Connolley created or rewrote 5,428 unique Wikipedia articles. His control over Wikipedia was greater still, however, through the role he obtained at Wikipedia as a website administrator, which allowed him to act with virtual impunity. When Connolley didn’t like the subject of a certain article, he removed it—more than 500 articles of various descriptions disappeared at his hand. When he disapproved of the arguments that others were making, he often had them barred—over 2,000 Wikipedia contributors who ran afoul of him found themselves blocked from making further contributions. Acolytes whose writing conformed to Connolley’s global warming views, in contrast, were rewarded with Wikipedia’s blessings. In these ways, Connolley turned Wikipedia into the missionary wing of the global warming movement.

The Medieval Warm Period disappeared, as did criticism of the global warming orthodoxy. With the release of the Climategate Emails, the disappearing trick has been exposed. The glorious Medieval Warm Period will remain in the history books, perhaps with an asterisk to describe how a band of zealots once tried to make it disappear.

“The Medieval Warm Period disappeared,” says Solomon.

But it didn’t disappear. Wikipedia has an article on the Medieval Warm Period. Here it is. It took me, what, seven seconds to open a google search, type the words, “medieval warm period” and “wikipedia” and press Enter in order to find it.

It seems to me that Lawrence Solomon has got to line up his facts before he goes public with such sensational charges.

- end of initial entry -

Gintas, who sent the Solomon article, writes:

Look here, at the history of the revisions. Look at 4 February, 2005.

Then look at 5 February, 2005.

It’s empty!

But on 6 February, 2005, JonGwynne comments:

(Return facts censored by WMC and rm inappropriate editorializing re: Daly)

It’s not until 15 May, 2005 that it reappears, thanks to JonGwynne:

For three months it was gone. Was it under heavy re-working? It was re-worked, but looking at how short the entries were at the time, I wouldn’t call it “heavy.”

It’s interesting to look at the notes put in for the revisions, such as JonGwynne 30 May, 2005:

(Resored more organic flow to intro—if you will insist on inserting POV material into this article William, can you not do it in the middle of a thought?)

Go to Connolley’s “Talk” page.

At the very bottom, someone says to Connolley:

I’ve read reports on the ‘net of you ‘cyber-bullying’ people on this article and getting de-admin’d for it. I hope there’s more to the story than what I’ve read, but frankly, I didn’t like your flippant and cavalier revert of me there the other day and I am fully prepared to seek having you barred from that article if you revert me on an ongoing basis there without talk page dialog. This is your one fair warning—please don’t blow it. Instead, please dialog with me on the article talk page if you don’t like my edits. Thanks. (talk) 04:40, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

The last comment was posted just today! Hmm …

Gintas writes:

Something is screwy with what I just sent you. There are edits, but the blank pages don’t make sense. How would someone (other than Connolley) make an edit to a blank page??

I can’t find Aug, 2003, where the page was supposedly removed. I can’t document Solomon’s assertion. It might be worth asking Solomon how he can prove this assertion.

Posted by Lawrence Auster at December 22, 2009 12:25 AM | Send

Email entry

Email this entry to:

Your email address:

Message (optional):