Poor old Watts

Via dubious routes I ended up at the bizarre http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/. Unfortunately I didn’t get to see the original version. In what is presumably deliberate irony, he has coined the term “Turborevisionism” to describe his own updating. And it possesses the always-amusing feature of the ignorant trying to talk about wiki: that people complain about the unreliablity of wiki when they are clearly clueless about how it works.

So: assuming he hasn’t re-revised it (I’ve kept a copy in the “extended” bit below, so refer to that if you need to), Watts is quoting:

Found a msg from Connolley directly to me:

William Connolley I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. -Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

This is badly confused/ing. The text above was posted [1] to the talk page of [[User talk:Certayne]] by [[User:Miesianiacal]] (I’m not familiar with either editor). This is relating to edit-warring or whatever at the wiki page about me [2], which shouldn’t be confused with my wiki user page [[User:William M. Connolley]]. If you’re interested in whether I’ve edited the wiki page, it is trivial to check, or you can rely on TOAT’s summary. If you want to edit that article you can’t, because it is now protected. If you want to annoy me by posting stuff to it once it gets unprotected you can’t, becasue I learnt not to watch it :-).

BTW, if you’ve come here cos you want to read fun stuff about clueless folk abusing me, you’ll like I am all powerful (part 2). If you *are* a clueless person come here to abuse me – can you at least try to be original?

This is the state of the Watts blog when I read it, kept in case he re-writes it again.

[Update: someone pointed me at google’s cache of the original post (though whether that has now been updated to the new version by the time you read this I don’t know). So diff’ing:

< It would appear the Mr. Connolley has now violated Wikipedias Conflict of Interest Policy where editing ones own page and removing unfavorable external references would certainly not be a Neutral Point of View required by Wikipedia policy:
---
> Consider the Neutral Point of View required by Wikipedia policy:

I don’t suppose he’d like to upgrade it to “Dr”? Ah well, accuracy isn’t something you expect from blogs. At least he spelt my name right, which is more than his commenters manage -W]

William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism
22 12 2009

UPDATE: There’s now some question about who is who regarding the editing of the Connolley page at Wikipedia.One of the problems with Wikipedia is the use of handles. In the messages sent to me seen below, it appears that they came from William Connolley via the Wikipedia message system, but can’t be sure since the identity of the people who have handles and are involved in active editing aren’t known. This is one of the central problems with Wikipedia- anonymous editing lends to the confusion. While it is clear that Mr. Connolley has in fact edited his own page in the past, I have removed a reference to self editing in the current time frame because of the uncertainty. – Anthony

======

People send me things. Here’s a story about a thread of recent exchanges that appeared in Wikipedia in the “talk” section regarding William Connolley’s page. This incident highlights the shape shifting nature of the information presented on Wikipedia, and how it is subject to the whims of ego and agenda. With information changing character literally in minutes, how could anyone treat Wikipedia as a reliable reference? I’ll coin a new word and call this “turborevisionism” due to the speed, sound, and fury it characterizes.

Consider the “Neutral Point of View” required by Wikipedia policy:

Neutral point of view (NPOV) is a fundamental Wikimedia principle and a cornerstone of Wikipedia. All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view, representing fairly, and as far as possible without bias, all significant views that have been published by reliable sources. This is non-negotiable and expected of all articles and all editors.

The editor who takes issue with this event writes:

On Sunday night, I went to the William Connolley wiki page and entered:

Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

That disappeared within an hour (maybe less); I reinserted it. On Monday night, checked again: text gone. I wished to re-enter it, but the [edit] facility was totally missing from the wiki page. Hardly ever saw that before.

Found a msg from Connolley directly to me:

William Connolley I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. -Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

___________________________________________

Date: Sun, Dec 20, 2009 at 11:53 PM

Wikipedia activity

In 2005, an article in the scientific journal Nature compared the reliability of Wikipedia and the Encyclopedia Britannica. It discussed Connolley as an example of an expert who regularly contributes to Wikipedia.[8]

A July 2006 article in The New Yorker reported that Connolley briefly became “a victim of an edit war over the entry on global warming”, in which a skeptic repeatedly “watered down” the article’s explanation of the greenhouse effect.[9] The skeptic later brought the case before Wikipedia’s arbitration committee, claiming that Connolley was pushing his own point of view in the article by removing material with opposing viewpoints. The arbitration committee imposed a “humiliating one-revert-a-day” editing restriction on Connolley. Wikipedia “gives no privilege to those who know what they’re talking about”, Connolley told The New Yorker.[9] The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 until 13 September 2009.[9]

An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]

___________________________________________

Just appeared in wiki (by Mason):

Additional criticism appeared on December 19, 2009, in nationalpost.com, as “How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles.” This alleges that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

__________________________________________

Instantly changed to:

An October 2006 article in Nature contrasted the Citizendium online encyclopedia project, which makes a point of recruiting experts from academia, with Wikipedia. It quoted Connolley as saying that “some scientists have become frustrated with Wikipedia”, but that “conflict can sometimes result in better articles”.[10]

Mason corx, 2009 XII 21, 12:45 AM & again 12:51 AM:

[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the “[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}} The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

__________________________

2009 XII 21 midnight: txt missing again. Mason want to re-inserts txt, cannot because the facility [edit] is now missing :

[[Lawrence Solomon]], on December 19, 2009, penned a piece in the “[[National Post]]” that accused Connolley of editing Wikipedia and using administrative power in order to subvert opinion that disagreed with his own, linking the supposed activity to the [[Climatic Research Unit e-mail hacking incident|Climategate scandal]].{{Citation| last=Solomon| first=Lawrence| author-link=Lawrence Solomon| title=Wikipedia’s climate doctor| newspaper=National Post| date=December 19, 2009| url=http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/19/lawrence-solomon-wikipedia-s-climate-doctor.aspx| accessdate=December 19, 2009}} The specific allegation was,”How Wikipedia’s green doctor rewrote 5,428 climate articles,” claiming that Connolley removed more than 500 wiki articles of which he disapproved; that he published inaccurate information on the controversial “hockey stick” graph; that he specifically opposed scientists from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

_____________________________________

Msg from William Connolley to Mason, 2009 XII 22:

William Connolley

I’m the original author of the paragraph at William Connolley that deals with the Lawrence Solomon article of December 2009. I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway. I don’t want to add any more reverts to that already poorly abused article, so I’m urging you to reconsider your addition of the detail. Cheers. -Ħ MIESIANIACAL 05:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

Comments

  1. #1 GoRight
    2009/12/23

    Well, for the record as it were, Anthony has not altered the original text of the article. He merely added the update notice to the top to reflect his honest understanding.

    [For all I know this is what he has done – unlike wiki, there is no edit history, so I can’t tell. I assumed that when he said “I have removed a reference to…” that should be taken to mean that he had removed some text. If you have a copy of the original, it would be possible to find out -W]

    [Update: you lose. He has updated the post. I’ve updated the post to note this -W]

    This of course was the sane and proper response of an honorable man when some of the comments pointed out the errors. This is in contrast to your favored technique of summarily deleting comments which criticize you or which make valid points which you find uncomfortable.

    Also note that I was one of the ones there actually correcting the record and explaining the reality of the whole situation.

    You’re welcome.

  2. #2 dhogaza
    2009/12/23

    This of course was the sane and proper response of an honorable man when some of the comments pointed out the errors. This is in contrast to your favored technique of summarily deleting comments which criticize you or which make valid points which you find uncomfortable.

    Right, Watts is an honorable man who doesn’t moderate his blog.

    It’s the sky fairies who last year started deleting my posts and then banned me.

  3. #3 Steve Bloom
    2009/12/23

    The events to which you refer never occurred, dhogaza. Also, we have always been at war with Eastasia.

  4. #4 Chad
    2009/12/23

    All Powerful One- Here’s google’s cached copy of the page: http://74.125.93.132/search?rlz=1C1GGLS_enUS334US334&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8&q=cache:http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/12/22/william-connolley-and-wikipedia-turborevisionism/

    [Thanks. I’ve upgraded the post to point to it. He did change it -W]

  5. #5 Physicalist
    2009/12/23

    if you’ve come here cos you want to read fun stuff about clueless folk abusing me

    Yep, that’s me.

  6. #6 lumpy
    2009/12/23

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Climate_change_dispute

    I’m confused. Mr Connolley (sp?) was admonished for reverting changes to AGW related pages because they were sourced from blogs and other useless references by clueless people, and everyone agreed on that. What am I missing?

    [You have my title wrong. As for the substance, you’re missing diffs. Adminshed where, and by whom? I don’t know what you’re talking about -W]

  7. #7 GoRight
    2009/12/23

    Are you still going on about this?

    RE: “He has updated the post. I’ve updated the post to note this -W”

    Oh, well, I stand corrected. He did exactly what he said he did in his update: “I have removed a reference to self editing in the current time frame because of the uncertainty. – Anthony”

    Yet another act of an honorable man. Shows intellectual honesty, something that appears to be lacking in your reaction to the entire episode.

    When faced with the uncertainty of the accusation of recent editing on your part he chose to do the honorable thing and remove it, properly noting the change in his update. I assume that you would prefer that he do so, no?

    You on the other hand, seek to turn his open and honorable act into some false and misleading accusation of misconduct (as your posts above clearly demonstrate). A most dishonorable act on your part, and one which is worthy of contempt.

    Alas, this is all too frequently your modus operandi when confronted with the reality of you own failings. Careful, though, the diminutive nature of your own character is on display for all to see … even on this barely traveled portion of the internet.

  8. #8 MarkB
    2009/12/23

    GoRight,

    Pot, meet kettle.

    Now Watts’ post is left with extreme insinuation in his attempt to dishonestly disparage another scientist and get his choir foaming at the mouth in unison (a daily routine).

    The fact that Connolley, an actual climate scientist (or former one) is active in contributing to Wikipedia pages on climate science is lost in the discussion. This should improve confidence in Wikipedia articles among most objective observers, not detract from it, given how many political hacks with no credentials and little knowledge on the topic seek to vandalize such pages. His edit log also appears to indicate that he understands what a reliable source is. Looking through yours, I can’t say the same.

  9. #9 Lab Lemming
    2009/12/23

    I think I should blog about the he said/ she said on your blog that refers to th ehe said/ she said on the wiki that discusses the he said/ she said on the discussion page for the wikipedia entry.
    And then somebody can twitter that.

  10. #10 Jonny Rotten
    2009/12/23

    MarkB,

    Objective observers have no faith whatsoever in any wikipedia article dealing with any remotely controversial subject precisely because of this sort of behaviour.

    Right now most people would prefer ‘climate scientists’ to keep their hands and their data sets where we can see them, rather than dabbling around with newspeak/groupthink on the wikipedia.

    Good grief, talk about comprehensively failing to get the point.

  11. #11 MarkB
    2009/12/23

    Johnny Rotten,

    I’m sure you would love to have climate scientists refrain from contributing to scientific articles, so they can be taken over by the conspiracy nuts you cherish, but you don’t speak for “most people”.

  12. #12 dhogaza
    2009/12/23

    MarkB:

    Now Watts’ post is left with extreme insinuation in his attempt to dishonestly disparage another scientist…

    This implies that Watts is a scientist, which he’s not. High school education, TV/Radio weatherman, that’s it.

  13. #13 MarkB
    2009/12/23

    Dhogaza,

    By “another scientist”, I was referring to Watts’ regular behavior of disparaging scientists. I understand he has little background in science. One can see this whenever he does a post comparing raw monthly anomalies.

  14. #14 bigcitylib
    2009/12/23

    A bit OT, but if it makes you feel better, L. Solomon writes for the National Post, a financially bankrupt Canadian paper that will probably not exist in six months, after which he will be either flipping burgers for McDs or whoring it up for The Examiner for a penny a page-view.

  15. #15 David G
    2009/12/23

    This thread is too funny. The same William Connolley who can’t win an election also got repeatedly disciplined – then he claims with a straight face: “Adminshed where, and by whom? I’m don’t know what you’re talking about -W”

    See, folks? He just doesn’t have any idea at all what people are talking about. What punishment? Where? I didn’t get no punishment!

    Liar.

    And the green-eyed jealousy over Anthony Watts’ “Best Science” site is funny to watch. The alarmist contingent is consumed with their impotent hatred at WattsUpWithThat’s for its increasing popularity.

    The public is beginning to see the bogus AGW scam unraveling, and Watts reports on it without censoring the alarmist side.

    Tough luck about those East Anglia emails, huh? The CRU climate scientists just lost their halo of invincibility. Now the public can see them for the dishonest, money-grubbing data fabricators that they were all along.

    (Also, dhogaza was banned for repeatedly violating the site’s policy. He was warned over and over. I can remember maybe a total of three or four site pests that have been banned since his site WattsUpWithThat first started, all for good reasons IMO. dhogaza was one of them.)

    Unlike the censorship prone climate alarmist blogs, and the constantly censoring Wikipedia climate propaganda, WattsUpWithThat posts all points of view. They even published James Hansen’s article this week – and there’s an open invitation for pro-AGW scientists to write articles. In contrast, realclimate and its clones censor anything that doesn’t toe the Party line.

    It’s interesting that realclimate is run at taxpayer expense, and they censor public opinion. Why? Because like Wikipedia, they can’t refute the truth. So they censor it. No wonder Watts’ site beat realclimate by a 10 – 1 margin. Is that pathetic, or what? As pathetic as Connolley getting the boot by his own peers in the last election.

    Unlike Connoley, Watts is a straight shooter. Unlike Connolley, Watts wins his elections. And unlike this pitiful little blog – appropriately named for a weasel – Watts already has about 500 responses to his articles exposing Wikipedia’s censorship, showing Connolley’s Goebbels-like deleting of anything contrary to the repeatedly falsified nonsense that CO2 will cause a climate catastrophe.

    When even the co-workers who know you best vote you out, it’s time to MoveOn. They’re on to your underhanded game playing. And like everyone else (except maybe dhogaza), they don’t approve.

  16. #16 Eli Rabett
    2009/12/23

    Wm, Eli does believe the ignorati are trying to mob you. You must be one large pain in their butt.

  17. The very fact that you had to delete it [cut]

    [Did I delete it? I’d forgotten, sorry. But sine you point it out I feel obliged to do so again -W]

  18. #18 Nick Barnes
    2009/12/24

    Wow, you stand accused of “editing Wikipedia”. I love a good show trial.

  19. #19 Nick Barnes
    2009/12/24

    Just out of interest, on the rare occasions that you delete comments here, generally for their scabrous content, do you preserve them anywhere? Like a Museum of Curiosities? That would be almost worth paying to see. “The Public Informer”‘s contribution above, curled and steaming like a fresh dog-turd in the snow, would certainly be a highlight.

    [I get all comments emailed to my google mail, so they are all in the somewhere. Presumably searching on “turd” will produce them all. Generally, long but for some reason silly comments from genuine folk get emailled back to the originator on the off chance they want to rant elsewhere about how I’ve censored them. However, if you’re prepared to *pay* for the dead stuff… -W]

  20. #20 Hugh
    2009/12/24

    …do you preserve them anywhere? Like a Museum of Curiosities?

    Hmmm…I wonder if that could be worth stealing!

    Happy Chrimbo W et al

  21. #21 guthrie
    2009/12/24

    David G – what, all points of view such as the one avbout CO2 snowing out at the poles? At least with blogs run by actual climatologists we have better quality control…

    And anyway, I just don’t believe you anyway, because the behaviour of denialists like yourself over the years suggests otherwise. You would of course be able to point out the examples where Dhogaza broke the site rules?

  22. #22 Anna Haynes
    2009/12/24

    Folks, I need help. If anyone gets a chance to talk to Mr. Watts in person – or can call him, at – could you please find out his academic credentials? I wanted to add them to the Anthony Watts SourceWatch page but when I called, he declined to state.

    (And, unfortunately, that info’s gone missing from his SourceWatch page, which leaves it quite misleading – someone’s deleted the rather telling “it is unclear whether he graduated” [from Purdue, which apparently he’s said he attended] on the grounds that my failed attempt to find out constituted original reporting.
    Can’t have any of that…)

  23. #23 Anna Haynes
    2009/12/24

    (oops, forgot the phone# – which in retrospect might be for the better, considering how providing it could be construed. It’s not hard to find.)

  24. #24 Anthony Watts is Honorable
    2009/12/24

    If Anthony Watts deletes comments or changes his posts, it is because alarmists have done something unethical or immoral. I fully trust Anthony Watts to objectively change things, especially given the obvious evidence of climate scie4ntists who are constantly editing things and adjusting things–I mean you don’t just adjust things for nor eason? Once you change something, then you ahve to question the motivation for that change, and in the case of claimte sicentists, their constant changing proves that the truth is something they are trying to rpevent from being seen. Anthony simply points to the truth, and if he has to change a few posts to do so, then he should be supported.

    Sorry to interupt you guys Goregasm.

  25. #25 Anthony Watts is Honorable
    2009/12/24

    Sorry about the Tytpos.

  26. #26 carrot eater
    2009/12/24

    I might be a bit slow on things related to the internet, but I don’t even understand what this is all about. Who’s accusing whom of what? Is Watts accusing WC of editing his own wiki article, which is against some policy? If Watts retracts that, then what is left to the accusation?

    I generally find it difficult to figure out what Watts is saying, or trying to say. A lot of posts there are just a copy/paste of a press release or in this case, some message. The sentence or two added by Watts don’t usually convey much meaning – neither in terms of giving context or analysis of the copy/paste, nor clearly stating what Watts makes of it.

  27. #27 TrueSceptic
    2009/12/28

    William,

    This hilarious stuff about how you have taken over Wiki to spread the “alarmist religion” makes me alter my view of the denialists.

    I now think that many of them are insane. Literally insane, that is.

  28. #28 TrueSceptic
    2009/12/28

    Just skimmed through Watts’s tripe. Replying to you:-

    While it initially appeared that you were making the edits to your own page yourself, upon further inspection (and to an outsider the Wikipedia is somewhat of a maze) that claim was brought into question, and the article here reflects that uncertainty.

    Yes, he really is that stupid.

    Despite his inability to understand what has been happening, he still sees fit to attack you and those at Wikipedia who refuse to misrepresent science to suit denidiots like him.

  29. #29 osmanlı iksiri
    2009/12/29

    I mean you don’t just adjust things for nor eason? Once you change something, then you ahve to question the motivation for that change, and in the case of claimte sicentists, their constant changing proves that the truth is something they are trying to rpevent from being seen. Anthony simply points to the truth, and if he has to change a few posts to do so, then he should be supported.

    [I’m not sure what you mean by climate scientists constantly changing things. As for Watts, he wrote a post that was hopelessly inaccurate. Even after his many crossings out it remains hopelessly inaccurate. Politeness would dictate that he contact me first to find out the truth – or in his case, utter lack of truth – in his allegations. He did not do so -W]

  30. #30 Giordano Bruno
    2009/12/29

    Watts seems a bit of a dullard even by denialist standards. I’ve not been able to find anything on his educational qualifications. Does he even have a university degree?

  31. #31 TrueSceptic
    2009/12/29

    30 Giordano,

    Not that lack of qualifications necessarily indicates low intelligence, but Watts has no degrees.

    His background is as a weather presenter. Nothing wrong with that either. We should be wary of the “argument from authority” trap.

  32. #32 mkurbo
    2010/01/08

    Mr. Bill – You have some pretense, I’ll give you that…
    I’ve battled you and you groupies on Wiki for longer than I should have tried to in reality. The fact of the matter is that young minds (kids) view that info as neutral and “filtered” by responsible adults and I could not feel good about myself without trying to affect your obvious bias on global warming articles.

    [Have you really? As who? As to the substance: you are too vague: provide specifics -W]

    I’m also the guy who said your time will come legally. You can’t support a pattern of data manipulation and misrepresentation as you have in the digital era without paying a price when facts clearly call into question your motivation and intent in retrospect. Your edits over “not peer reviewed”, when in fact the peer reviewed process on this subject was rigged internally – alone – alone should render you actions suspect.

    [Again, too vague. Which article? -W]

  33. #33 Hank Roberts
    2010/01/08

    > credentials

    Zero Degree Weatherman?

  34. #34 Hank Roberts
    2010/01/08

    I keep pointing out how effective the denial PR is in capturing the bulk of Google’s Image Search results — remember, the majority of voters in many elections is choosing by color and photograph associated with what they saw earlier.

    For a really good example of lying with imagery effectively, you won’t do much better than the uncited and unattributed stuff at agwdemotivated.blogspot.com, the website of one of the posters above. That site may well be the definitive answer to the Fermi Paradox.

  35. #35 dhogaza
    2010/01/09

    I have not seen Anthony Watts act in a dishonorable fashion from my interaction with the WUWT website. What I have seen is a common sense discussion on climate which is really all the world needs at this point.

    Oh, yes, common sense like …

    There are CO2 snowstorms in the Antarctic.

    CFCs don’t cause ozone depletion because only halogenated molecules can do so.

    A cold day in the United States is more important than widespread heat elsewhere.

    Blah blah blah.

    Get real, or get laughed at.

    [Ah, well in fact it was a case of “get real or get deleted” and he didn’t, so your comment may now lack context :-) -W]

  36. #36 kwik
    2010/01/09

    Mr Connolley,

    [http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/06/foaming_at_the_mouth_with_joe.php -W]

    Shame on you for your behaviour on Wikipedia.Who pay you for this? Greenpeace my guess is.

    [Wrong your guess is. Paid by no-one am I -W]

    We AGW-refutniks do not get paid by anyone.

    [Vair good -W]

  37. #37 Eli Rabett
    2010/01/09

    Dear kwik, you are just not asking at the right doors. Without too much trouble we find that:

    Willie Soon got over $300K from Exxon
    Sallie Baliunas shared in the Exxon loot AND got $52K from the Marshall Institute
    Fred Singer got $143K for writing the NIPCC farce AND he has over $1M in his SEPP knipple.
    Don’t let us get started on Pat Michaels and his New Hope Environmental Services which is raking it in from coal companies and coal burning utilities.
    Oh, and Dick Lindzen gets appearance fees.

    The bunny gotta get a new gig.

  38. #38 Eli Rabett
    2010/01/10

    Wimp

The site is currently under maintenance and will be back shortly. New comments have been disabled during this time, please check back soon.