Wiki-libel: Denier Solomon Tries to Shoot the Messenger

Lawrence Solomon - he of the imaginary legion of top scientists who deny climate change - has launched an attack on the credibility of Wikipedia, complaining especially that Wiki has the temerity to acknowledge climate change and to censor unfounded counter arguments.

Unfortunately, Solomon pegs his own case to the reputation of the notoriously unreliable Benny Peiser, leaving the Wiki editors looking admirably clever.

Solomon's principal complaint appears to be that while Wiki's climate change entry offers a reference to Naomi Oreskes landmark Science article (Beyond the Ivory Tower: the Scientific Consensus on Climate Change), it doesn't accord any attention to the contrarian “research” put forth by Peiser.

Apparently, Wiki explained to Solomon that Peiser's work was rubbish - that he “not only had been discredited but had grudgingly conceded Oreskes was right.”

Solomon snorts: “I checked with Peiser, who said he had done no such thing.”

Well, what Peiser says on a particular day appears to be a moving target. But had Larry spent five minutes on Google, he may have discovered this: Peiser admits he was 97% wrong, an excellent roundup of Benny's bungling, courtesy of the rather more thorough Tim Lambert over at Deltoid.

Solomon's argument that Wiki shouldn't be edited seems to boil down to a complaint that he, personally, doesn't like what he reads, complaining further about Wiki's posts on issues such as Roe vs Wade and Intelligent Design. He concludes: “Wikipedia is the people’s encyclopedia only if those people are not conservatives.”

Well, I am sure that if he looked up “conservative” - in any publication - he would not find a definition that demanded obeisance to fictional scientific concepts. It's true that Wiki dismisses Intelligent Design, saying: “No articles supporting intelligent design have been published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, nor has intelligent design been the subject of scientific research or testing.”

But the Encyclopedia Britannica (hardly famous for left-wing radicalism) takes a pretty similar line, ripping apart the thin fabric of “Intelligent” logic and concluding: “intelligent design appeared incapable of generating a scientific research program, which inevitably broadened the gap between it and the established norms of science.”

One other point: Solomon also complains that Wiki is impolite about Fred Singer (PLE-E-E-E-EASE see “No apology is owed Dr. S Fred Singer and none will be forthcoming” for background on THAT scoundrel ). Well, I don't know if Singer believes in Martians - or if Wiki ever said as much - but “kook” is entirely too nice a word to describe the man. And again, the editors at Wikipedia deserve credit - and a little gratitude - for keeping “a hack in the pay of the oil industry” out of a serious argument about climate science.

Wikipedia is an open-access information source - and by all the evidence, a damn good one. Sure, it gets hammered occasionally when agenda-driven fiction writers like Solomon try to bend the truth to their ideological beliefs, but all in all, we might all be pleased that editors like William Connolley are standing at the gate, deciding, quite correctly, that, “Peisers crap shouldn’t be in here.”


>>Well, I don’t know if Singer believes in Martians - or if Wiki ever said as much - but “kook” is entirely too nice a word to describe the man. And again, the editors at Wikipedia deserve credit - and a little gratitude - for keeping “a hack in the pay of the oil industry” out of a serious argument about climate science.

Its real hard to have simpathy for someone who flacks for tobacco and denies second hand smoke causes health problems and then takes money from Exxon-Mobile to sabotage all the good scientific research on global warning.

Should be fired.
Their blatent attempt to controll and promote propoganda on a site that was supposed to be devoted to the truth is discusting.

A once respected information source reduced to just another propoganda pusher.

Sad story indeed.

Solomon sould be commended for his work to show this travisty.

Gary’s dreadful spelling and grammar makes you wonder if he has finished Grade One.

One can easily see that Gary’s science is at an even lower level than his ability to read and write.

Why do you keep letting us know how ill-educated you are? Your time would be better spent repeating Grade One.

Ian Forrester

Gary, the only posts you or ZOG ever put up are just recombinations of insults that you have already posted.

I have suggested I (at least, perhaps others also) would be happy to read your comments if they were coherent and defensible. When I asked you to try to defend your sweeping statement about how all standard science was “nonsense”, you came back with nothing specific.

In the future, and you need to do your two minutes hate, why not do it alone somewhere else? Or just post a line saying, “See Date xxyy for previous gripe”. Unless, of course, you would like to add something new? Too much to hope for?


He has been attacking wikipedia for several months, as well as trying to use it to pump himself up. He’s done things like add text to the entry on him saying that he wrote multiple articles for the Wall Street Journal, when he wrote only one. (His wife wrote two others) He has also tried to pump up his organization, Energy Probe, by describing Jane Jacobs as a major player.

Your responses are all so predictable for cult members.
Insult and smear those that value truth while pushing made up nonsense.
Wikipedia has no credibility left.
And as for Ian. Well, all he is capable of is insults so he had none to begin with.

I must admit I am truly impressed with the shear naiveté displayed here on a daily basis.
You guys would make perfect socialists, you simple believe what you are told to believe.

Someone should direct Solomon to Conservapedia, so he can wallow in rightwing unreality all he wishes. Here’s a description of it, from who else but Wikipedia :)

“…an English-language wiki-based web encyclopedia project written from an Americentric socially conservative and Conservative Christian point of view…”

Gary, this last post of yours does not improve on your previous effort.

If you are certain that us “guys would make perfect socialists” who “believe what [we] are told to believe”, then I am SURE you must be able to present an actual case to support this bizarre accusation.

Right? Could you possibly present it, or a fragment of it, and thereby initiate a moment of useful interaction? It might get a better reception than your previous posts, which are empty of anything except posturing, insults, and innuendo.


….but he can’t show us a fire.
When the deniers DO try to make an argument, I get a picture of Professor Irwin Corey in my head.

Gosh, what an intriguing analogy. As an admirer of the wonderful comedic skills of Prof. Corey, however, I must protest that Gary is hardly in his league….

anyone here remembers the Professor. You’re right JWP, but they’re almost as funny without meaning to be. And their way of stating their “scientific arguments” make about as much sense.

I would expect nothing less from faithful cult members.
You guys still believe Jim Hansen’s lunatic ravings.
Some of probably still believe the ‘Inconvenient Truth” fairytale.
Of course you would believe Wikipedia’s biased propaganda.

“People can be smart, groups are uniformly stupid”

its a rule.

Gary, there are lots of smart people on this blog who understand climate science and the deleterious effects that AGW will have.

There is also a group of trolls (Paul S/G, Gary, ZOG, Rob et al.) who are uniformly stupid.

Ian Forrester

I’ll argue that Paul S/G/M/x can at least at times be somewhat logical. No arguement on the others though….

If they understood the science, they would know full well that it at the very best circumstantial and poorly supported.

Fortunately, the number of believers is shrinking.
There is hope.

“…uniformly stupid…grunt, snort, snuffle…”

But, Knuckledragger, unlike you, we aren’t abject failures in the real world of science and commerce, massage their damaged ego by lashing out at all and sundry.

Over at New Scientist blog today, they were considering coming up with replacements for the “climate change denier” label that is much hated by the former deniers of climate change (who are now the current deniers of human factors in climate change). One poster came up with a nice set of suggested alternatives:

May I suggest going with one of the far simpler:
‘Pollution Apologist’,
‘Limbaugh Listener’,
‘Exxon Shareholder’,
‘Disaster Afficianado’,
or simply ‘Misanthrope’.
By Anonymous Master Cynic ///