Slashdot Mirror

Norfolk, Virginia is having flooding problems due to rising sea levels.

Apparently, it's not sea levels increasing but land subsiding and landfills settling. That's from a US Army Corp of Engineers report released in 2010.

The pattern of the environmental movement somehow continues to go unnoticed by the public: Environmentalists start paying attention to X, notice that their expectations for what X is like were wrong, then suggest that X is in danger from humans. But, in each case, the decision to announce a catastrophe can be shown to either be technically questionable, or simply premature.

Here's an example:

1979: First satellite measurements of ozone

"On September 17, 1979 (top left), the first year in which ozone was measured by satellite ..."

1983: Ozone hole first detected

"... a compilation of monthly averages in a suggestive sequence of time-lapse stills, also from Cambridge’s Centre for Atmospheric Science, reveals the expansion of the violet blotch almost appear from nowhere in about 1983, when it was first detected ..."

1985: Ozone hole declared a threat to the world

"When was the hole in the ozone layer discovered?

The discovery of the Antarctic 'ozone hole' by British Antarctic Survey scientists Farman, Gardiner and Shanklin (first reported in a paper in Nature in May 1985) came as a shock to the scientific community, because the observed decline in polar ozone was far larger than anyone had anticipated."

In terms of process, it is historically important to observe that the ozone hole was declared an emergency before a full solar cycle was observed with satellite.

Similar critiques have been made about these coral claims:

Professor Ridd
James Cook University

"I have published numerous scientific papers showing that much of the 'science' claiming damage to the reef is either plain wrong or greatly exaggerated. As just one example, coral growth rates that have supposedly collapsed along the reef have, if anything, increased slightly.

Reefs that are supposedly smothered by dredging sediment actually contain great coral. And mass bleaching events along the reef that supposedly serve as evidence of permanent human-caused devastation are almost certainly completely natural and even cyclical. These allegedly major catastrophic effects that recent science says were almost unknown before the 1980s are mainly the result of a simple fact: large-scale marine science did not get started on the reef until the 1970s.

By a decade later, studies of the reef had exploded, along with the number of marine biologists doing them. What all these scientists lacked, however, was historical perspective. There are almost no records of earlier eras to compare with current conditions. Thus, for many scientists studying reef problems, the results are unprecedented, and almost always seen as catastrophic and even world-threatening."

Similar arguments can be made about climate change arguments, because the Sun itself is still not well understood, and in particular, we do not even know what happens to the solar plasma which enters into the Earth's ionosphere. In fact, Piers Corbyn's successes at predicting long-range extreme weather events is highly suggestive that environmentalists have failed to understand certain crucial solar, plasma and magnetic parameters which may be externally altering climate parameters in ways that are difficult to untangle:

Could gambling save science? Encouraging an honest consensus
Robin Hanson

"Consider the example of Piers Corbyn, a London astrophysicist who has been unable to get academic meteorologists interested in his unusual theory of long-term

Satellite and balloon measurements show the models are way out-of-line with actual measurements. Most likely the feedback of 3.2 deg K for a doubling of CO2 is wrong. The baseline of CO2 is 1.2 deg K; the 3.2 deg K comes from estimated feedback systems, and that is what is pumped into models (well, values from 2.1deg K to 4.4 deg K). However, those secondary sensitivity values are too high, and probably should be replaced with a total CO2-driven sensitivity of around 1.4-1.5 deg K per doubling, less than half what is used in the models. If you do that, you'll find the models suddenly agree with measured data. So the physics isn't wrong, but the estimated feedback coefficients for the physics is.

Our farming is cooling the planet, which makes sense if you think about it (evaporation from crops and watering).

And yet fewer people are dying from climate change than did just 70-80 years ago - even though the population is much higher. Technology WILL enable us to mitigate almost all the effects of any climate change - man-made or natural.

The Venus scenario would require more carbon than we have to burn, forminb an atmosphere that is as thick as our ocean depths: https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Wrong: Direct rebuttal to your article.

The Venus scenario would require more carbon than we have to burn, forminb an atmosphere that is as thick as our ocean depths:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

And when we do that, and look at more than a straight line, we see that the global sea level rise is decelerating, not accelerating. Hard to get people worked up about things slowing down, though, so we'll stick with straight-line approximations for things that are best fit with non-straight-lines and be done with it!

Is this before or after the projected 10-year pause in global warming due to decreased solar activity? Google search is pulling back articles from 2012 to say global warming wasn't linked to solar activity, except that it has for the last 5 years, and could happen again for at least another decade or more.

What happened to the Medieval Warm period in that graph? Oh they say it only happened in Europe. Fake news!

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

There's a whole bunch of temperature reconstructions here and all of them show both a Medieval Warm period and a Little Ice Age

https://wattsupwiththat.com/pa...

It seems the USA actually met the Kyoto Protocol goals for emissions reduction, and I believe it is the only country to do so. We did not ratify that treaty, and so it was never official US policy - but we met it nevertheless. What makes you believe that ratification or failure to do so of the Paris Accord would result in anything different?

Except they are not even keeping pace with GDP growth. That kind of changes things, doesn't it?

Except for the GIGO bias that NASA and others put into the stats:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
http://dailycaller.com/2015/06...

But Myles Allen, a climate expert at the University of Oxford, believes scientists can blame individual natural disasters on climate change.

When is the world gonna smarten up and start listening to Slashdot posters and not Oxford scientists when it comes to climate change?

Clearly, it's all gotta be a hoax because it's cold as fuck here right now. And, the smartest man in America told us it was a hoax, so there's that, too.

Yeah it's not like he gets paid to say these things or has any conflict of interest on the issue.

It's nice that they can "NOW" blame disasters on climate change but it isn't like they haven't been doing that for years and even blaming disasters that never happen on climate change.

Al Gore batting a 1000 here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Oh he isn't a scientist ? Well what about Dr. Hansen
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

I don't recall NYC sinking under the waves of a tropical climate New Years.

But Myles Allen, a climate expert at the University of Oxford, believes scientists can blame individual natural disasters on climate change.

When is the world gonna smarten up and start listening to Slashdot posters and not Oxford scientists when it comes to climate change?

Clearly, it's all gotta be a hoax because it's cold as fuck here right now. And, the smartest man in America told us it was a hoax, so there's that, too.

Yeah it's not like he gets paid to say these things or has any conflict of interest on the issue.

It's nice that they can "NOW" blame disasters on climate change but it isn't like they haven't been doing that for years and even blaming disasters that never happen on climate change.

Al Gore batting a 1000 here
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Oh he isn't a scientist ? Well what about Dr. Hansen
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

I don't recall NYC sinking under the waves of a tropical climate New Years.

Not only does Germany pay more, they pollute more. Germany has spent a quarter of a trillion dollars, and they are still **10x dirtier** then France. Any way you put it Germanys energiewende is a failure . Here is a second source And here is a previous slashdot story about it.

Actually, storms are trending down. The cost to replace what was built is going up. Forty years ago, you could buy a 1300 square foot, 3 bedroom/1 bath home in Seattle for around $14,000. Meaning you could replace it for around $7,000. Now today, that same house would cost $400,000 to replace. Even if you have just one storm every 10 years, the costs to replace what is damaged escalates. Inflation and all, you know...

Statistically downward trend since 1950 exists in hurricane landfalls. Again, how much more data do you need to disabuse yourself of your religious fervor?

What data is there to push the anthropomorphic global climate change concept? Actual real data, not output from models. Because the actual data shows sea level changes incredibly linear for the last ~150 years, the actual warming being a lot less than the models predict, and the modeled sensitivity of climate to CO2 levels being a factor of 2 to 3 too high

There is no data to push an anthropomorphic climate change concept.

Definition of anthropomorphic
1 : described or thought of as having a human form or human attributes
        anthropomorphic deities
        stories involving anthropomorphic animals

2 : ascribing human characteristics to nonhuman things
        anthropomorphic supernaturalism
        anthropomorphic beliefs about nature

The word you want is anthropogenic.

Definition of anthropogenic
: of, relating to, or resulting from the influence of human beings on nature
  anthropogenic pollutants

Regarding sea level changes being linear for the last ~150 years here is a statistician's analysis of that. It doesn't appear linear to me.

Sea level rise has accelerated

But that would take up valuable real estate! How else can we keep "green cities" like San Francisco well below the per-capita average of trees?

What data is there to push the anthropomorphic global climate change concept? Actual real data, not output from models. Because the actual data shows sea level changes incredibly linear for the last ~150 years, the actual warming being a lot less than the models predict, and the modeled sensitivity of climate to CO2 levels being a factor of 2 to 3 too high

Climate sensitivity to CO2 is about half to one third of what the IPCC models claim it is. That's what the actual data says. Nobody is denying that CO2 isn't a "greenhouse gas", just that it is not the most dominant one (water vapor and methane trounce it) and that its impact is vastly overrated (this study, for one). However, it's easy to regulate economies based upon their CO2 emissions, so it is convenient to force massive wealth transfers, such as the Paris Accord was to do (where China, the leading emitter of CO2, got to get away with just saying it will address the CO2 issue in 2030 - not that it will start now, or do anything after 2030, just consider it).

Why? There is conclusive proof that climate models vastly overestimate the sensitivity to CO2. Particulates from emissions are a much bigger issue than CO2 output. Not to mention road damage, which goes as the fourth power of road weight, and with EVs tending to be on the portly side compared to the typical ICE, that doesn't help with infrastructure.

You do know that Dr. Spencer does not deny warming? He's just questioning if it's driven by CO2 - because the CO2-based models don't match up with actual measurements. Plot CO2 increases relative to temperature and you'll find there is no correlation. Yet we continue to use models and decide policy for billions of people based upon the conclusion that it is all CO2 that drives any warming we are experiencing.

So just to clarify: your position is to keep using failed models (provably so) rather than start over? Ignore the data, it's the model and desired outcomes that matter?

The old alarmist predictions of climate catastrophe have proven false again and again and again, so why do people believe the new ones?

You would expect that a group that consistently makes inaccurate predictions would lose credibility because of that and the public would stop believing what they say. Or, well, maybe not.

Interesting article from National Geographic in the 1970s about the potential for a coming ice age. And how the law that kicked of the US Federal Government research into climate change was specifically about global warming - not climate change (meaning - the conclusion is foregone, how do we research it).

And ...

"While climate caterwaulers are ridiculously complaining the Trump administration is blocking new Earth observing satellites from being launched, we find one is on the launch schedule for November 10th.
From NOAA –
The launch of JPSS-1, the first in a series of NOAA’s four next-generation operational polar-orbiting weather satellites that will give scientists the most advanced tools to aid in weather forecasting and earth observations, is scheduled for November 10 at 1:47 a.m. PST from Vandenberg Air Force Base in California."

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Global temperatures just dropped below 2014 values. If we are suepposedley warming, where is the warming? Looking at the chart back past the year 2000, where is the warming?

One again, climate alarmists are the real deniers, the ones peddling fantasy that goes against measured results. That's not science.

This is all about money, always has been, always will be.

"To perform these [Studies of the modern carbon cycle] tasks, the project expects to need significant resources. Specifically, studies of the modern carbon cycle will require about 15 teams devoted to laboratory and field investigations. Analyses of past events will require about another 15 teams for sample acquisition and geochemical analyses. New theory and related modeling to motivate and support the entire effort will require an additional 10 teams. An average of $2.5M/year for each team would result in a $1B, ten-year project. The outcome would be a fundamental understanding of carbon cycle dynamics, revolutionizing earth and environmental science and resulting in a comprehensive, objective evaluation of the long-term risks of modern environmental change. This is necessarily an extraordinary opportunity for enlightened philanthropy, since a project of this scope could not be funded from public resources." from http://www.sciencephilanthropy...

The kooky AGW nuts in the govt/IPCC with their "forcing/feedback" algorithms off by an order of magnitude are doing the same thing. They want giant sums of money, all the while they (NCDC) are manipulating the weather records in HCN, or making bogus studies based on badly situated weather stations situated next to a heat sink. Next thing you know, we'll see one of these weather stations placed next to a nuclear reactor to cook the books further

"These same changes, to reiterate, have been associated with all previous mass extinctions on Earth"

Really?

Timeline of (major) Mass Extinction Events:
http://www.worldatlas.com/arti...
1 Holocene extinction - Present
2 Cretaceousâ"Paleogene extinction event 65 million years ago
3 Triassicâ"Jurassic extinction event 199 million to 214 million years ago
4 Permianâ"Triassic extinction event 251 million years ago
5 Late Devonian extinction 364 million years ago
6 Ordovicianâ"Silurian extinction events 439 million years ago

So the 'extinction events' are approx 65mya, 200mya, 250 mya, 360mya, and 440 mya?

Then we look in https://wattsupwiththat.com/20... for this: (CO2 vs time chart) https://wattsupwiththat.files.... ...which shows us (purple line)
65 mya- no CO2 spike (it had been falling steadily 60+ million years)
200 mya- yes CO2 spike
250 mya- no CO2 spike (it had been steady for about 60+ million years)
360 mya- no CO2 spike (a spike about 20my before this, though)
440 mya- CO2 rise over previous 20 my ...no clear correlation at all. CERTAINLY not that CO2 changes have been associated with "ALL PREVIOUS MASS EXTINCTIONS". That's bullshit.

In fact, that chart shows that current CO2 levels are much lower than the bulk of the last 500 million years.

Further, this chart would serve as pretty serious disputation of ANY correlation between CO2 and warming, frankly. CO2 spikes seem to result in no impact to temperature or plummeting temperatures.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/j...
The National Hurricane Center (NHC) provides information on major U.S. hurricanes during the past 100-plus years.According to the NHC, 70 major hurricanes struck the United States in the 100 years between 1911 and 2010. That is an average of 7 major hurricane strikes per decade. What are the trends within this 100-year span? Let's take a look. Let's split the 100-year hurricane record in half, starting with major hurricane strikes during the most recent 50 years.... During the preceding decade...

Did an arts graduate write that junk Forbes article? It's ridiculous and disingenuous to try to explain a TABLE of data with ad-hoc divisions like that. We're on slashdot; we should know better. Here's a graph with trend lines since 1978:

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

This trend line shows a slight decrease in hurricanes overall, but despite that a slight increase in major hurricanes. We'd have to do trend lines for the source data for the Forbes article to make sense of it.

This prediction is looking really bad, from someone who is an acknowledged expert at the top of his field.

You cannot subsidize renewables at 400x other sources, and then claim they're "cheaper".

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

According to the WT, coal gets subsidies to the tune of about 50 cents per megawatt hour of production. Solar gets $230 per megawatt hour of production, or about 460x the subsidy.

That idea that renewables will be cheaper than coal is simply politically motivated bullshit.

Oh that's where it hiding is it? Where it will do absolutely no harm to anyone because unlike you I understand what is actually happening..

That scare point was debunked way back in 2014, shame you don't understand any of the real science involved, and just want to spread fear to please your high priests.

Wait, your understanding of the real science is based on a single paper that studied a fresh-water lake and you assume that this is identical to salt-water oceans? You are happy to ignore all the other scientific papers that don't match your preconceived notions, but will accept as the truth a study that isn't even about oceans!

No wonder your link had to be to wattsupwiththat.com and not some reputable site. Where is the follow-up studies that replicate this 2014 paper? Where has the same test been done on other lakes to see whether this is just a local phenomenon? Where is the evidence that the effects on fresh-water lakes is directly comparable with salt-water oceans? Do you really understand the science, or did you just trust the completely unbiased interpretation of Anthony Watts? (Yep, he sure doesn't have an agenda!)

And that's what's happening CO2 wise

That is a completely absurd way to represent CO2 levels as they are now, and the rise of them given historical levels. It's not like a tsunami, it's like there's a leak that's tapering off as the pressure diminishes from inside.

Where the CO2 is going now is into the oceans.

Oh that's where it hiding is it? Where it will do absolutely no harm to anyone because unlike you I understand what is actually happening..

That scare point was debunked way back in 2014, shame you don't understand any of the real science involved, and just want to spread fear to please your high priests.

Also if CO2 is being absorbed why are we supposed to be scared about warming again since ocean absorbed CO2 can no longer participate in warming? Your Warming Masters are not going to be very happy with you spreading that message!

And again since output is declining that means less going into the ocean, so again my original point stands that the WHATEVER absurd claim you make about CO2 is not as bad as you are scaring people into believing, because over the next several decades there simply will not be nearly so much CO2 going into the system as has been forecast.

I'll let you have the last word since if you are still spreading lies debunked two years ago, there's no rational part left to actually debate with - I just wanted to point out to others how all that is left of you is nonsense and fear. Sad.

"something that is dying because of market forces"
I'm not sure that's /precisely/ true? Market forces?

Coal is dying because of massive government investment and subsidies compared to the other industries.

As much as we'd like to simply 'declare' that coal is dead, the only reason we can afford the other technologies is ... because we're staggeringly wealthy and can afford to blow money on them.

"U.S. Energy Information Administration data shows that:
- solar energy was subsidized at $231.21 per megawatt hour
- wind at $35.33 per megawatt hour
- coal at $0.53 per mwh
- natural gas/petroleum at $0.67 per mwh
- hydroelectric power $1.47 per mwh
- nuclear power $2.10 per mwh"

https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

The most recent climate model simulations used in the AR5 indicate that the warming stagnation since 1998 is no longer consistent with model projections even at the 2% confidence level.

For reference, the 2% confidence level is out past "wild ass guess" territory and approaching "enemy action" land. Feel free to link me up a model that has made a successful prediction. (Side note: only predictions of the future are accepted, so these links need to be about 5 years old, minimum.)

And then there is Pat Frank. He has made a model that more closely matches reality than anything so far put out by the hockey team, but you won't like it. See his essay.and presentation. Watch the presentation, it is fantastic. And be sure to check the math yourself.

This Watts Up With That article (https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/04/05/falling-sea-level-the-critical-factor-in-2016-great-barrier-reef-bleaching/) gives a much better explanation and addresses the claims that climate change is the reason.

Whoops. Left off the attribution for the list: https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Improved crop yields, milder winters...

Correct

an influx of starving refugees from Mexico when their farmland turns into desert.

What part of "improved crop yields" did you fail to understand? Why would they be starving with an abundance of food??

Do jungles have more, or less plant growth? The increase in warmth corresponds to greater moisture in the atmosphere. Mexico will be even more of a garden than it is now.

Go into any greenhouse. Do you find inside a desert, or thriving plants?

That's what I really despise about you warming alarmists. You constantly claim utterly contradictory things. You have not even a second thought to real science behind how heat and water interact, much less the rest of the complex system that is the climate. You are all just DOOM DOOM DOOM idiots used by those above you ,parroting completely asinine points that you plainly do not understand.

hurricanes, storms, floods

Maybe a bit more flooding but global warming reduces extreme weather. So I guess you are for more hurricanes and people dying over a bit of extra flooding? You, sir are a monster, caring only about your own dry feat while thousands suffer or die.

> Did you get your biofuel from you local landfill yet? No?? Why not? All it takes
> to convert almost anything in a landfill into biofuel, is a high pressure tank,
> heat and time. Because they've been doing it for almost 2 decades now
> in Canada. (It's been mostly scrubbed off of the Web.) Latin people laugh
> at you when you don't believe they can make gasoline out of tires. ...

Yes you can make biofuel. Yes it does work in Latin America, aka the tropics. Other areas of the planet have this thing called "winter". Biofuel congeals when temperatures drop near zero. Back in 2009 https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

> "All schools in the Bloomington School District (Minnesota) will be closed today
> after state-required biodiesel fuel clogged in school buses Thursday morning and
> left dozens of students stranded in frigid weather, the district said late Thursday.
>
> Rick Kaufman, the district's spokesman, said elements in the biodiesel fuel that
> turn into a gel-like substance at temperatures below 10 degrees clogged
> about a dozen district buses Thursday morning. Some buses weren't able to
> operate at all and others experienced problems while picking up students, he said.
>
> We had students at bus stops longer than we think is acceptable, and
> that's too dangerous in these types of temperatures," Kaufman said."

Other school districts avoided these problems by either idling their buses all night long, or using heated parking garages. Not exactly "green solutions". And finally, the biodiesel stuff was forced down people's throats in Minnesota. If it's so cost effective and wonderful, why does it need to be mandatory? And the cold-weather problems are not exactly unkown. http://www.startribune.com/min... because "essential services" are exempt from the mandate.

> First, key industries have been permanently exempted from the requirement to use
> any biodiesel whatsoever. The state's nuclear power industry was given an indefinite
> exemption. A temporary exemption for railroads; taconite and copper mining;
> logging, and the U.S. Coast Guard was changed to a lifetime pass. Through
> such action, legislators acknowledged that biodiesel is not reliable enough
> to ensure that these vital industries would not suffer serious disruptions.

The same experiment has been done for 100 years, and consistently reproduces the same results. Take a sealed, transparent tank of air. Shine sunlight on it. Take the temperature. Increase the percentage of CO2 in the tank. Shine sunlight. Take the temperature. The CO2-richer air has a higher temperature.

That has never happened, even Al Gore and Bill Nye failed to replicate it.
The simple fact is even at 100% CO2, the infra-red absorbance is too small to make a measurable temperature difference at the scale you are describing.

The U.S. already lowered carbon emissions enough to meet the Kyoto targets, years ago.

From the very beginning of the article you cited:

New EIA data shows USA inadvertently meets 1997 Kyoto protocol CO2 emission reductions without ever signing on thanks to a stagnant economy. Lowest level of CO2 emissions since 1994.

So, let's not gloat, m'kay?

The U.S. already lowered carbon emissions enough to meet the Kyoto targets, years ago.

So since there is no way you can mean the U.S., I wonder what nation you *did* have in mind?

*Innocent Gaze*

Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!

Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!

Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!

Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!

Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!

Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...

Its funny because /. hasnt been watching the great man made global cooling culling happening on english wikipedia for the last 10 years by Professor William Connelly, a owner of Freemantle Media's realclimate website, endowed with his myriad of wikipedia sub-editor accounts. I suspect Will would have been one of the people who asked for the ban in the first place!!

Some history:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...
https://wattsupwiththat.com/20...