William Connolley – Thoughtcop

December 20, 2009

“And while the future’s there for anyone to change, still you know it seems, it would be easier sometimes to change the past.”

Fountain of Sorrow
Jackson Browne

Thoughtcop - William Connolley

In George Orwell’s 1984 Winston Smith and thousands of co-workers diligently work to re-write history.  It has been clear to many that much the same thing has been going on over at Wikipedia.  It turns out that one of the champions of the historical rewrite is a fellow by the name of William Connolley, who has taken it upon himself to re-write the thermal history of the planet at Wikipedia to juice-up global warming fears.

Lawrence Solomon, from Canada’s National Post explains

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.

But re-writing natural history was not enough for Connolley.  He moved on to recreating the personal histories of prominent global warming skeptics…

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.

This wasn’t just a hobby for Mr. Connelley, it must have been his full-time obsession.  He re-wrote over 5,000 Wikipedia articles! 

But can’t anybody re-write articles at Wikipedia?  You can’t hold it against Connolley that he was very passionate and prolific about the subject, can you?

It seems Mr. Connolley had a little more control at Wikipedia than you or I have.  Solomon again elaborates..,

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.

The efforts of people like William Connolley, Michael Mann, the folks at CRU and the rest of the rabid hockey stick team have paid off in spades for the global warming alarmists.  I know intelligent, educated, scientists who actually believe that the medieval warm period is the creation of revisionist history of global warming “deniers.”  They don’t understand that before the global warming controversy started heating up (pun intended) in the 1990’s the medieval warm period and the little ice age were standard fare for anybody studying the thermal history of the Holocene.  It has been the alarmists, like William Connelley, who have tried to “get rid of the Medieval Warm Period.”

Connolly’s Biography on Wikipedia

Connolly has his own biography on Wikipedia.  At this moment (December 20th, 2009, 6:10 pm Mountain Time) the article says this about his “Wikipedia activity”…

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.[10] 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.[10] The restriction was later revoked, and Connolley went on to serve as a Wikipedia administrator from January 2006 until 13 September 2009.[10]

But just yesterday, Dennis Kuzara reported at WattsUpWithThat that Pierre Grés over at Wikipedia told him, via email, that …

“In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming.  This has now been added to his article.”

Really? What did he do that was worse than attempting to re-write the history of the planet in a way to affect decisions about the economy of the world?  I’d really like to hear the details of that one.

The part about “This has been added to his article” may be the most revealing statement in this whole mess.  Why?  Because, as you can see from the quote about Connolley’s “Wikipedia Activity,” above, it does not appear there now.  I guess the army of Wikipedia editors are still hard at work.


  1. Very interesting. I just noticed that someone with the user handle ‘Andrew C.’ has seen fit to delete the page on the Roman Warm Period.

    I wonder if they are related?

  2. […] from: William Connelley – Thoughtcop « Climate Sanity Related […]

  3. […] Checché ripetano le fonti ricopiate da Climate Monitor – cerca collaboratori, btw – le voci sono 5.437, parecchie sul clima […]

  4. “William Connolley – Thoughtcop”

    More like ‘Bill Connolley-Ponytailed douchenozzle’.

    To be honest I think this guy’s hairdo is an ecosystem onto itself, so maybe he is living the green dream of being a filthy stone age granola huffer.

    • I prefer to base my judgement on what Connolley did, not on what he look like.


      • Agreed. I shouldn’t have said that. It was a low blow.

        You know what else is a low blow? Editing the most-used online reference site to reflect your own scientifically-flawed ideological hobby-horse.

      • Don’t be such a teacher’s pet librarian, let the man vent! Connolley deserves what he gets!

  5. […] played drums on some long-lost Flock of Seagulls b-side, you can probably rely on Wikipedia. For climate change science…not so much. In George Orwell’s 1984 Winston Smith and thousands of co-workers diligently […]

  6. Why the amazing Global Warming wide ranging ‘conspiracy’. What was the point of all this.

  7. Studies indicate the upper safety limit for atmospheric CO2 is 350 parts per million (ppm). Atmospheric CO2 levels have stayed higher than 350 ppm since early 1988.

    • Whose studies? The same people who have been caught massaging the data to support their preconceived ideas, or agendas? Or other scientists, who may be honest, but are relying on doctored data?

      Science builds on what has gone before. Building on a foundation of shifting sands is a disaster. The damage done to science by people falsifying data will go on and on and on, until the record is set straight, by weeding out all the damage that has been done. These people have probably set climatology back a generation.

    • you’re going to have to explain CO2 levels of 14,000 ppm then, aren’t you! … we’re waiting…

  8. A very interesting article. I was not aware of the influence of Connelly. If anyone is interested go back to the discussions and to see the spleen,vitriol and scorn he poured on those with whom he disagreed.Its amazing he was allowed to get away with it for so long. It has fatally damaged jokipedia in my eyes.

  9. This guy is just a typical true believer, with a bigger stick than most.
    The lack of integrity demonstrated by AGW true believers was one of the first clues I had as to the false nature of AGW theory.

  10. And he’s still at it:


    This chap seems to have nothing else to do than to edit articles (mostly climate related).

  11. I had placed a few comments on Wikipedia that also disappeared thanks to this character.

    This is a fine article and I’d like to send it in its entirety to my “Mysterious Climate Project” subscribers, with acclamation of course. I’d also like to repost it on the climateclinic.wordpress.com blog and on the climateclinic.com website.


    • Yes,
      That is OK,

      Thank you,

      • Thanks, I’ll get it posted this week sometime!

        Jack Koenig, Editor
        The Mysterious Climate Project

  12. […] Wikipedia, of course.  If you care about what goes into your children’s heads, then the William Connolley debacle illustrates the danger of […]

  13. […] Wikipedia, of course.  If you care about what goes into your children’s heads, then the William Connolley debacle illustrates the danger of […]

  14. It saddens me to see how quick people are to believe what they read. I guess I shouldn’t be surprised.

    Please check what articles Connolley deleted. His job as an administrator requires him to delete articles that editors have flagged as inappropriate for Wikipedia. There is ZERO proof anywhere that he has deleted articles simply because he disagreed with the content.

    As for his edits, and edit can range from the simple removal of an extra space in a sentence to an entire rewrite of an article. The 5k edits mentioned makes no note of what articles were edited and in what capacity they were edited. I find this to be similar to saying that Joe went into a bank 300 times and left with money every time. Joe allegedly stole money from the bank once so he must have stolen money 300 times.

    Check the facts people. As you obviously do not, I assume that’s why you have problems with Wikipedia’s “lies”. I would be willing to bet that you have this problem in many other aspects of your life as well.

    • Dear Zach,

      Thank you for your comment.

      It sounds like you have much insight into this issue. Perhaps you would use your insight to explain why…

      “In September 2009, the Wikipedia Arbitration Committee revoked Mr. Connolley’s administrator status after finding that he misused his administrative privileges while involved in a dispute unrelated to climate warming. This has now been added to his article.”

      And why it is no longer in his article?

      Here is a case in point of the malleability of Wikipedia in general: For two days before the special election in Massachusetts Google news rightly highlighted articles about the race. The list of links featured a Wikipedia article about Scott Brown. A quick look at the history of that Wikipedia article showed that it had been modified HUNDREDS of time in the previous hours, sometimes multiple times in a single minute.

      You might argue that most of these changes were cosmetic, and you would probably be right. But how do you know? I did not have time to read through those edits – it was probably being edited faster that I can read.

      I would guess that 99% or views of Wikipedia articles are not followed by a look at the edit history (by simply clicking on the “history” tab at the top of the article).

      As of this moment, there have been 50 edits to the Brown article in the last 16 hours. I have breifly scanned through some of them. Most are cosmetic, but some are not. For example, who does he succeed in the senate, Edward Kennedy or Paul Kirk? This changed back and forth about 5 times. What percentage of the time did he vote with the MA Republicans, 90% or 96%? To many, this is the difference between a typical party member and an automaton.

      I will reiterate my conclusion: “Wikipedia may be useful, but should never be trusted. Always check the sources. I will never, NEVER cite Wikipedia as a source again.”

      It should be the policy of schools to not allow wikipedia citations. This is simple common sense, and a policy that has already been adopted some places.

      Speaking of accuracy: in your comment you put the word “lies” in quotes. This implies that I had used that word and the you are quoting me. Look again, that word does not appear until you use it.

      Best Regards
      Tom Moriarty

  15. I hope William was paid a tidy sum for enabling the scumbaggery of the CRU/U of Penn team. I should imagine that not a farthing will meet your palm again.

  16. Nice Page, nette Seite!

  17. William M Connelley, Climate thug

    Re: My experiences when attempting to make changes on Wiki by Andrew Judd

    Wiki is preventing a true description of the ‘greenhouse effect’ being shown on Wiki.

    Wiki wants you to believe that the atmosphere heats the Surface. Anybody attempting to show that the surface heats the atmosphere will be banned.

    As required by Wiki my comments were supported by the references already on the page.

    I went as far as to phone up the Lamont Doherty Earth Observatory Senior Scientist, Yochanan Kushnir Ph.d, who wrote reference 9 and he confirmed that the surface heats the atmosphere, and the surface is warmer because the atmosphere slows down the heat loss from the surface and the colder atmosphere cannot heat the hotter surface. That was the main point that I wanted to get onto the Wiki page.

    Wiki administrator Dave Souza who may well be Connolley since Souza cannot possibly be the ten year retired local authority architect he claims to be with the energy of a fifteen year year old to prevent changes, said I had an odd unsupported opinion that the atmosphere heats the surface and was always intrumental in getting me sanctioned.

    After I was banned my wife informed the editors that Dr Kushnir fully supported what I had said and even after this editor Dave Souza kept up the obfuscation that Kushnirs telephone comments were not valid for Wiki. Souza referred to my wife as das Weib when he reported her. Obviously he knew the abusive content of that expression when used to describe another mans wife. My wife was banned.

    Connolley appears to be the chief abuser of anybody who attempts to make unapproved changes, but he has other names he can use to ensure no disputing editor can make changes.

    Connolley did a write up of his behaviour with me on his blog where he kept up the insulting behaviour in the comments continually saying i did not know what i was talking about.

    Fairly well known climate scientist James Annan called me a loon, and on his blog when i asked for an explanation he deleted the comment and said ‘do go away silly troll’. He followed up with more comments on Connolleys blog that if he told me what he did on the internet he would have to kill me. Connolley thought this was all a big joke.


    These people behave like children but evidently they have some power to alter our reality.

    Other editors have tried to make similar changes and been banned.


    The whole experience was very odd and it was only later that i found out this had all happened before and Connolley was a well known activist.

    Please feel free to use this information as you wish


    Andrew Judd

  18. […] vehicle was William Connolley’s control of over 500 Wikipedia […]

  19. […] vehicle was William Connolley’s control of over 500 Wikipedia […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: