On the plus side, there’s no reason for William M. Connolley to comment here anymore

Somethin' Stupid

Somethin' Stupid (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tom Nelson spots this droll duo:

Misc : Stoat

The Policy Lass is sick of arguing with stupid people. Anyone who has been to WUWT and the comment threads there will empathise. It is all a hopeless morass of nonsense; it cannot be fixed, only risen above. And indeed (as I’ve tried to tell them) the science just goes on without them. But I’ll still visit occaisionally in case there is anyone there who wants to listen.

Arguing With Stupid People | The Policy Lass

Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do. They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do. It’s the D-K effect and it’s rampant at both CA and WUWT and Climate Etc. If you’ve ever haunted those sites, you know what I’m talking about.

I’m always tempted to go to there and look for ‘teh stupid’ so I can mock it, but as the Twain quote says, they just bring you down to their level. Admittedly, there is a certain pleasure in mocking teh stupid, but life is short and its unnaturally warm outside. Time’s a wasting.

I get such a kick out this, especially since Connolley has shown that he’d rather just dismiss everyone with a wave of the condescending hand. At least he doesn’t call for our houses to be burned, though I’ll bet he secretly likes the idea.

About these ads

169 thoughts on “On the plus side, there’s no reason for William M. Connolley to comment here anymore

  1. Old Job could have handled them: “No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you.”

  2. In “Arguing With Stupid People” she is describing herself to a tee. Far more than you or any of us. Yet she can’t see it and thinks she’s far smarter than she is. Yet she thinks she’s clever by repeating “teh” classic online typo. She’s just reinforcing it. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry. Probably a bit of both.

  3. Movie Quote:

    Patton: [to his dog, named after William the Conqueror, after it is panicked by a much smaller dog] Your name isn’t William, it’s Willy!

  4. Connolley is just not a very likeable person. He has repeatedly misused his position. On Wikipedia he arbitrarily censored comments that did not agree with his wacky and repeatedly falsified global warming narrative. Not once, but hundreds of times.

    Bye-bye, Billy. You brought this on yourself. It is a result of your major character flaw. The world is better off without your unethical machinations. Good riddance, as you fade into well deserved obscurity.

  5. “Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do.”

    From the Bible, Luke 4:23 (King James Version):
    And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

  6. I’ve run across Mr Connolley on several blogs and must admit that I’ve never won an argument with him. When I point out facts contrary to his assertion, he goes away. When I point out flaws in the logic of his argument, he goes away. When I ask for evidence that supports his conjectures, he goes away.

    Clearly I’m losing these arguments with him because I am stupid.

  7. Gees, how does she cope when she is arguing with herself.. ???
    which one is stupidest ?

    UnderGrad in science, but doesn’t use it.. says it all.. coffee shop waitress perhaps?

  8. I asked William a slew of questions and waited for answers that never came. I guess I was just too dumb to understand so he didn’t bother replying. May he forgive my ignorance. :)

  9. That’s quite a bit of projection he’s giving as you say, he’s given to “a wave of the condescending hand.” But, when he’s challenged, he’s got nothing…….. studies say……… he’d be comical if it weren’t for the pathetic part. It is sad, though, I was hoping he had the intelligence to see the various perspectives.

  10. First, A friend of Luboš Motl’s says I don’t have a clue that I don’t have a
    clue, then Connolley assures me I don’t understand basic physics, finally Willis tells me “… you’ve made a very bad start.”

    Maybe I should hang out at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ for a while, it will annoy Connolley and give him a chance to rail at WUWT without having to come over here.

    Hmm, no mention of the CSM science quiz over there, I could bring that up and rant about the bogus question I missed.

  11. Oh brother … as if these guys have built anything of practical use in the world that has stood the test of time, the test of weather and wind, and all manner of force nature can ‘dish out’ (or the environmental-lab’s shaker table and/or temp-chamber can throw at it) …

    Book-learnt-smart, paper-pushing, report writing, pencil-necked, livin’ in a make-believe world, model-‘running’, absolute-power addicted, educationally-sheltered, unable to relate to the real-word, holier-than-thou, detached uber-geeks (not to be confused with your average garden variety geek which is harmless yet lovable).

    .

  12. Anything is possible says:
    April 20, 2012 at 8:48 pm

    Wiiliam who?

    Anything, as no one explained who this demagogue is, I thought I’d post a link to an explanation that has quite a few valid points. http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley
    on the other hand, if you were merely posting your question as a point of irony (more people know who Asange is than Connolley), then forgive me, as I am indeed, stupid.

  13. Please let him know that I would love to discuss the science with him. The only reason I’m a skeptic is a distrust of the models and a lack of other reasons to believe that whether will get more extreme and harm us in some way.
    Please let him know that if he could show me emperical reasons to believe that human action is having detrimental effects on the climate (or he convinces me on the veracity of climate models) I would gladly join his side and petition for GHG reductions.

  14. “Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do.”

    Uhhmmm… No, Mr. Connolley.
    Research shows that stupid people have lower intelligence and have more difficulty learning. Conversely, ignorant people are just uniformed. There is no relationship between ignorance and intelligence. Let me state this succinctly, Mr Connolley. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is permanent. You can quote me.

    Confusing stupidity with ignorance is, well frankly, just stupid Mr. Connolley. Mind you, I’m not mocking ‘teh stupidity’ of your statement, just clarifying the facts so you might learn a simple truth, if you are capable.

    MtK

  15. @Ric Werme:

    Actually, William and Willis have very much in common, namely, both cannot stand the slightest criticism, and both are prone to abuse their prerogatives.

  16. ha ha ha!!!!! oh, the hilarity!
    i got something i just have to say for policy lass:
    your citation of the dunning-kreuger effect, which is merely malapropism a couple guys renamed after themselves, is a favorite rhetorical weapon of the sophomore. it sounds like they are being scientific in addressing a topic, but really it’s an ad hominem attack basically calling the other guy stupid.
    the dunning-kreuger effect, is it? it’s not an effect, but a gambit. i guess you didn’t know that, huh?
    well, ima reveal to you a little bit how the magician does his tricks-
    just like that story of masturbation making hair grow on your palms – the dunning-kreuger gambit is designed for a purpose.
    nobody expected you to believe your palms would grow hairy – at least not for more than a second – what they wanted to do was see if you LOOKED, policy lass.
    similarly, the dunning-kreuger gambit discriminates who suffers from it and who doesn’t. people who have it, cite it. people who get it laugh at them. ha ha on you, sucka.
    you got it. get it? ha ha ha!!!!!! schadenfreude has never been more entertaining!

  17. Connolley is deliberate in his advancement of AGW propaganda. He has read enough about both the science and the politics to understand that his position is entirely political….. He has been editing Wiki pages for years on the subject, so he can’t plead ignorance….

    If Connolley was in anyway scientific, he would understand the uncertainties and would be conversant about those uncertainties….. But he isn’t. That makes him a deliberate propagandist.

  18. The D-K effect is, indeed, rampant here and on most sceptic sites. It can hardly not be, because as soon as you have any number of people you will find some who know less than they should.

    But of course that also applies to AGW sites too. I wonder if Mr Connolly is honestly so stupid he thinks everyone who agrees with him is clever than average!

    The cure for the D-K effect is to let people who do know what they are talking about counter any false arguments. And that is where the sceptic sites win hands down. They allow debate and request proof (real proof, not proof from authority). Meanwhile our little stoat does everything he can to shut down debate, thereby ensuring any false statements which toe the correct line remain unchallenged.

    Another corollary of the D-K effect is that everyone suffers from it at some time. Connolly appears to assume that he could not possibly suffer from it. Which means that he is blind to his weaknesses. The first sign of the D-K effect is people being blind to their weaknesses.

    People are always going to be wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes. Even in fields in which they are expert. Thinking your side has all the answers is pretty much evidence that they don’t.

  19. davidmhoffer says:
    April 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm
    —————————————————————
    Exactly, although he will ignore five peer reviewed links that directly counter his postion, pick one little area of legitamate contension, and focus on that area in the most demaeaning critical infantile manner possible, and then, if defeated in that arena, attempt to move the conversation off topic with a pedantic message supported in a very limited fashion by a barely cogent link, and then he will declare victory as he walks away.

  20. davidmhoffer says:
    April 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm
    I’ve run across Mr Connolley on several blogs and must admit that I’ve never won an argument with him. When I point out facts contrary to his assertion, he goes away. When I point out flaws in the logic of his argument, he goes away. When I ask for evidence that supports his conjectures, he goes away.

    At least he’s consistent…

  21. A quote from Einstein that the warmists might contemplate to help open their minds

    “A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”

  22. Policy Lass in a comment on her post (Policy Lass April 14, 2012 at 3:43 pm):
    “I think that people who happen by those websites [WUWT, Climate Audit, etc.] will only stay if they are inclined to reject the science. Those who see the sites for what they are leave pretty quickly. The ones who stay are the ones who get their pre-existing biases confirmed by what McIntyre, Watts and Curry write.
    It’s true that you can put a reasoned argument out there for those who might be open to it, but as Peter Watts wrote in the excerpt I quoted in my previous post, people are adept at denying the facts when they contradict their current opinions.” My emphasis.

    She’s a perfect example of the D-K Effect.

    REPLY – So Judith Curry has been officially declared apostate, then. It was just a matter of time. ~ Evan

  23. William Connolley tried to defend Mann from the attacks of using Tiljander proxies upside-down. After awhile, he realized Mann used the proxies upside-down, and lost interest in the subject.

  24. Research clearly shows that liberals are much worse than all others at comprehending or predicting others’ ideas and positions, because they’re so SURE they know-it-all already. Conservatives, on the other hand, can accurately characterize and predict the positions and attitudes of liberals.

    Policy Lass is a perfect illustration of the way self-righteous certainty works. Or doesn’t.

  25. J.Hansford says:
    April 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm
    Connolley is deliberate in his advancement of AGW propaganda. He has read enough about both the science and the politics to understand that his position is entirely political….. He has been editing Wiki pages for years on the subject, so he can’t plead ignorance….

    If Connolley was in anyway scientific, he would understand the uncertainties and would be conversant about those uncertainties….. But he isn’t. That makes him a deliberate propagandist.
    ___________________
    Agreed.
    Connolley’s disengagement will not fool anyone, although it may lend some vapid reinforcement to those of similar misanthropic bent.

  26. Any objective observer, no matter how thoroughly convinced of the truth of AGW, would have to cringe at the social media behavior of warmists versus deniers (to evenly use the epithets assigned to each side). Deniers, as crazy and silly as some may be, (say, believing in intelligent design), have been trying to have a real conversation about real issues for a long, long time. They’re interested in getting to the bottom of things, be it data, or the elusive falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Opinions, even contrary ones, are openly allowed and addressed.

    Warmists, on the other hand, as rational and atheistic as any may be, have been trying to shut down any conversation about the real issues for a long, long time. Without realizing it, they’ve built up an edifice of belief and orthodoxy as arbitrary and capricious as any monotheistic religion. We see this in their behavior both on comment boards opposed to their views, and their transparently defensive censorship when others comment on their turf.

    As a rational, freethinking atheist since 1st grade, I’m sad to say I have more polite arguments and debates with my fundamentalist christian friends over evolution and gay marriage, than I do with my liberal socialist hippie friends over global warming, or Keynesian economics. As dogmatic as any evangelical friend of mine has ever been, they’ve never been the MSM caricature of sign-waving-abortion-doctor-killing-yahoos. And as seemingly rational and composed many of my liberal pals have ever been, they’ve gone completely nuts when challenged on the premises of their opinions.

    tl;dr – WUWT: come for the articles, stay for the comments. For all the hurly burly, this place has been open, honest, and remarkably tolerant of trolls :)

  27. gnomish says:
    April 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm

    just like that story of masturbation making hair grow on your palms – the dunning-kreuger gambit is designed for a purpose.
    nobody expected you to believe your palms would grow hairy – at least not for more than a second – what they wanted to do was see if you LOOKED, policy lass.

    You mean it doesn’t????

    Sigh. All those wasted years …

    (Sorry, couldn’t resist it)

  28. Stupid people mock because they can’t argue their case. They call others stupid trying to cover up their own ignorance!. I have had tutors mock me because they didn’t know the answers to my questions or didn’t understand what I was asking.

  29. This is interesting because I ended up at wuwt and CA precisely because they are so good at presenting facts and answering questions. I started at Gavin’s place, asked an innocent question that I had no idea was “proscribed” and was censored. Not a good start.

  30. I’ve often wondered if the guy is real.

    None of his arguments had substance and often made no sense. Perhaps he is is a bot?

  31. krischel Good summary of their thinking as I have seen you can actually watch there mind shift into lock down when they find out you are not of the cult ! another tell is the way they treat those of the cult that may show signs of weakness in the face of their Satan , makes lord of the flys look like a picnic!

  32. Old tactic; like Mooney’s accusations that republicans have no brains, defective brains, etc., or Krai Norgaard who says skeptics are mentally ill.

    The pattern is that the warmists attack us personally now instead of bringing forth their argument, well basically their only argument ever was computer simulations and they don’t need a skeptic to fall apart, they do that by themselves.

    So this is just one more sign of desperation and circling the wagons. The next of them who comes over here should explain why every adjustment to sea ice, sea level or temperature goes into the warm direction. I still need a scientific explanation for that. It’s an unexplicable phenomenon. New physics?

  33. Poor Policy Lass. Somebody give her a link to Lord Monckton’s latest. If she can dismiss that demonstration of logical fallacies as “teh stupid” then … then she’s earned her name and will doubtless soon receive her callup to “the cause” she so uncritically supports.

  34. On her About page, she states she is unable to evaluate the science (of climate) and relies on the ‘consensus’, which we know to be a bogus fabrication.

    So she doesn’t understand the science herself and apparently makes no effort to, but attacks other people who try and understand the science as ‘stupid’.

  35. In part the problem that people like this woman have is they are unable to separate science as a process from science as a product.

    The process of science is exploring uncertainty. But the product of science is removal of uncertainty, at least most of the time.

  36. Mooloo says:
    April 20, 2012 at 11:00 pm

    People are always going to be wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes. Even in fields in which they are expert. Thinking your side has all the answers is pretty much evidence that they don’t.

    Exactly, I like your post.

    I may add that the biggest advantage of the sceptical position in science is that you only need to demonstrate one flaw of a theory to refute it, or at least that was the case in Michelson and Morley times. One thing wrong and the whole theory needs to be rewritten, It happened to Newton and it will happen to Einstein.

    That does not seem to happen to CAGW. No tropospheric hotspot, no global glacier receeding, no accelerated sea level rise, no polar caps shrinking, no unadjusted rural temperature rise and still some people think that CAGW is a valid theory.

    One proof is enough to refute a scientific theory, Still some people like Connolley are looking for a smoking gun that proves CAGW right and censors the proofs that refute it.

  37. Connolley is one of the persons who actually destroys Wikipedia. He and the CAGW fanatics who do not let factual information to enter & remain in Wikipedia are one of the most visible example to the limitations of Wikipedia and why it does not make it to be a reliable source, not until it manages to control its bullies.
    This is why I ceased my support to Wikipedia. For me it was not an easy decision as I liked the Wikipedia idea itself.

  38. Anthony, I was just yesterday thinking that a Conolley post was needed here. Reason? He kept saying that he had been Lied about.

    I really think an addendum needs to be made to this article, detailing just what he did in Wikipedia, and why he is no longer there.

    Note to willie~ then you can write a wiki article about this! Oh…. wait….

  39. Steve C says:
    April 21, 2012 at 1:37 am
    Poor Policy Lass. Somebody give her a link to Lord Monckton’s latest. If she can dismiss that demonstration of logical fallacies as “teh stupid” then … then she’s earned her name…

    As in, “There’s no good reason for it — it’s just our policy.”

  40. The trouble with these people is that they mistake widely believed fallacies which they happen to believe to be true, for facts, because these fallacies support a cause. Facts support no cause, nor do they oppose a cause. They just are.

    As one of the comments above suggests, they should be introduced to the scientific method. ALL of it, including the inconvenient parts which destroy their cause.

    Mann, Hansen et al and all their uncritical acolytes have been abusing and ignoring the scientific method for far too long.

  41. Otter says:
    April 21, 2012 at 3:02 am
    “I really think an addendum needs to be made to this article, detailing just what he did in Wikipedia, and why he is no longer there.”

    He is there again for quite a while now; I think not with admin privilegues, but he’s allowed to edit again.

  42. Urederra says:
    April 21, 2012 at 2:55 am
    One proof is enough to refute a scientific theory…

    Which makes the AGW cultists the ultimate contrarians — they believe that one proof of *anything* they’ve posited will be enough to validate the whole shebang…

  43. It seems to me that the BIGGEST difference between deniers and Mann Made Global Warming Creationists ™ is that deniers on the whole are a lot more open to listening to positions that are different to theirs where as the creationists will not have a bar of it. To the Mann Made Global Warming Creationists ™ anyone who dares question their position must be utterly destroyed, not just their ideas but their very being must be utterly and completely destroyed so that they no longer pose a danger to their religious beliefs.

    The second difference that stands out between the two camps is that the Mann Made Global Warming Creationists ™ arent averse to projecting their weaknesses, ignorance and bigatory on the deniers.

    Mailman

  44. Well he is right about it. There are a lot of stupids here. Just like in other places on the web.
    If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs.
    I told that to two different bloggers here on WUWT. Both are too reluctant to do so. So therefore these people will never be taken seriously. At least not by me.
    I am sorry, but it is as it is.

  45. Oh Jesus – as if quoting the freakin’ bible in a scientific context had ever produced a winner…. you may wish to try a notch better than that.

  46. From the Policy Lass’s blog:

    “I have several climate-related books on my bookshelf, including Michael Mann’s The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars, The Honest Broker, by Pielke Jr., Storms of My Grandchildren by James Hansen, Challenged by Carbon by Bryan Lovell and Climate Wars by Gwynne Dyer.

    “I hope to read and provide a review for each of them in the coming weeks.”

    So, she has FIVE very serious tomes on her bookshelf and ‘hopes’ to read them in a week or two and write a review of them? Bet she doesn’t. I bet she still has colouring books on her shelves she hasn’t finished yet.

  47. If we enter a cooling period (without significant volcanic ‘effects’) then who is going to look stupid?

  48. “They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do.”

    Policy Lass, knowing what you have been informed of and who is informing you is probably step one in figuring out how much you know.

  49. Robbie says:
    April 21, 2012 at 3:46 am
    “Well he is right about it. There are a lot of stupids here. Just like in other places on the web.
    If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs.
    I told that to two different bloggers here on WUWT. Both are too reluctant to do so. So therefore these people will never be taken seriously. At least not by me.
    I am sorry, but it is as it is.”

    Oh cry me a river. Robbie, a serious question. Why is every adjustment the warmist scientists make, no matter to which measurement, in the warming direction? Why are instruments always misconstructed in such a way that they tend to show too much cooling and need to be fixed through adjustments? Is that a kind of Murphy’s Law of warmist science?

  50. Surely the DK effect describes Connolly and this other person. After all if someone is wrong it’s easy to tell them why, it’s also easy to be polite.

  51. policylass: “it’s rampant at both CA and WUWT and Climate Etc”

    Pretty much says it all. She can’t even do basic arithmetic.

  52. Intelligent people don’t label other people stupid.

    People who constantly lose at a debate resort to labelling the other side stupid however.

    —————-

    Wikipedia had the potential to become the greatest resource mankind has ever seen – information on every virtually topic known about, available at the touch of button to everyone from young children to grandmas across the whole planet instantly. People like Connelly turned it into an untrustworthy source and caused enough damage that the concept is no longer useful at all.

    Way to go Connelly. Good job. Rather than allow the rest of the planet to have access to “objective” rather than your biased information only, you destroyed it instead.

  53. AndyG55 says:
    April 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm

    Gees, how does she cope when she is arguing with herself.. ???
    which one is stupidest ?

    UnderGrad in science, but doesn’t use it.. says it all.. coffee shop waitress perhaps?
    ___________________________________________
    NO, she went on to get an advanced degree in POLITICAL Science. (snicker, guffaw) I think that says it all. I wonder what lobby group she works for. Does her pay check come from BP, Shell Oill, or Standard Oil (Rockefeller Foundation) or perhaps the evil FORD (motor car) Foundation. You know the people who fund CAGW.

  54. Dang! Connolley’s snarky condescending “you’re just too stupid to understand climate science” posts here at WUWT probably did almost as much to educate people about the lack of science supporting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as Willis Eisenbach’s logical, carefully thought out articles. This truly is a shame. Gonna miss that boy!

  55. So, we are all stupid? only stupid people believe what they are told without looking/checking the facts!
    1.no real warming in over a decade
    2. acrtic ice appears to be on the rebound
    3. sea levels dropping
    4.still not found the “Hot Spot” that the models say should be there
    5.models are getting further and further away from “observed real world data”

    w connolley fiction writer and teller of facts LOL……1 less to worry about, good riddance

  56. Robbie says:
    April 21, 2012 at 3:46 am

    ……If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs…..
    ________________________________________
    Why bother? Peer-reviewed magazines are no longer the supporters of the scientific method they once were. Science itself has taken a beating in the reputation department.

    You are committing the logical fallacy of “Peer-reviewed” = “verified & validated” = TRUTH, which is utter hogwash. I am not surprised you are pushing that fallacy though since it is one of the foundation fallacies of CAGW.

    Since you like Peer reviewed studies…

    How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

    The frequency with which scientists fabricate and falsify data, or commit other forms of scientific misconduct is a matter of controversy….This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys….

    A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices…

    Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

    I find that pretty pathetic. About 3/4 of scientiasts “Cheat” and you want use to spend the time and effort to publish in the same venue as these cheats?

  57. What seems to be a good example of the intellectual obscuring W.C. engages in, was at Craig Loehle’s post 4/17, Scientist’s rebuttal of Michael Mann’s “denier”and other unsavory labels in his book. Connolley chimes in at 9:33 am. He makes tangential, irrelevant and fallacious comments, never engaging in actual discourse for a day or two.

  58. Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do. They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do.

    Research shows that smart people — people who truly are iintelligent — tend to think they know far more than they do. They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do.

  59. …I see it another way

    Connolley tried to promote himself….
    ….it didn’t work

    He felt he needed an excuse for stopping

  60. Maybe I missed something, but from what I’ve seen Connelly’s still there on Wikipedia. As well as a lackey of his with the handle of SkepticalRaptor. And it’s not just climate science they’re dumping on. The Younger Dryas Impact Page has been closed to further edits because SkepticalRaptor started an edit war when he deleted a reference to a recent, and relevant PNAS paper titled Evidence from central Mexico supporting the Younger Dryas extraterrestrial impact hypothesis.
    On the YDIH  talk page his stated reason for his destructive edit, and deleting a reference to relevant peer reviewed literature is:
    “Only to shut up everyone did I edit in the article, but it really doesn’t qualify as a Reliable Source, by any definition of the word. By the way, the work in Mexico has been debunked by a lot of people smarter than me.” (That was pretty quick since the paper was only published on March 6 2012) I guess his definition of a “reliable” source is anyone smarter than him.
    He probably didn’t have to look far to find people who’re smarter than he is. But he makes it abundantly clear that on Wikipedia the stupid unfounded opinions if the “consensus” trumps real science every time.
    I call the process mutual-inter-assumptive confabulation.

  61. Atmospheric science is on the side of the so called “sceptics”. The actual planetary measured warming due to the increase in atmospheric carbon dioxide is lower than the lowest IPCC model predicted warming. All of the warming is it at high latitudes where it was caused the biosphere to expand.

    The fact that actual planetary warming is less than the lowest IPCC model prediction and is found only at high latitudes logically supports the assertion that the planet’s response to a change in forcing is to resist the change (negative feedback, planetary clouds in the tropics increase reflecting more sunlight in to space) rather than to amplify the change (positive feedback) due increased water vapour in the atmosphere.

    Analysis of top of the atmosphere radiation changes Vs changes in planetary temperature also support the assertion that planetary clouds increase in the tropics thereby reflecting more sunlight off into space thereby resisting forcing changes rather than amplifying them.
    Trillions of dollars are being proposed to be spent on boondoggle schemes which will not significantly reduction carbon dioxide increases but will have significant negative effects to the environment and to humanity. An example is the EU and US mandated conversion of food to biofuel (massive loss of tropic forest and unsustainable increase in the cost of food).
    Western countries do not have trillions of extra tax payer funds to spend on irrational policy schemes that will damage the environment and result in starvation and malnutrition.
    Carbon dioxide is not a poison. Plants eat CO2. A doubling of CO2 increases cereal yields by 30% to 40%. Plants make more effective use of water when CO2 rises which reduces desertification. The increase in atmospheric CO2 is unequivocally a significant net benefit to the biosphere and to humanity. Crop yields are and will continue to increase. There is and will be increased net precipitation. The biosphere expands when the planet warms with most of the warming occurring at high latitudes. That is a fact.

    Science is unequivocally on the side of “sceptics”. No rational person would support trillion dollar boondoggle schemes.

    The extreme AGW issue is a mania, the madness of crowds.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/warrenmeyer/2012/02/09/understanding-the-global-warming-debate/

    “The problem for global warming supporters is they actually need for past warming from CO2 to be higher than 0.7C. If the IPCC is correct that based on their high-feedback models we should expect to see 3C of warming per doubling of CO2, looking backwards this means we should already have seen about 1.5C of CO2-driven warming based on past CO2 increases. But no matter how uncertain our measurements, it’s clear we have seen nothing like this kind of temperature rise. Past warming has in fact been more consistent with low or even negative feedback assumptions.”

    Richard Lindzen,
    “It has long been observed that global warming offers opportunities for a huge number of interests to exploit and that the eagerness to exploit the issue has led to a remarkable corruption of institutions – public, private, and academic. In a set of cogent and well-written contributions, Climate Coup documents what is happening intelligently and in depth. There is no need for indignation in the contributions: the situation speaks for itself. One can only hope that the ordinary citizens of both the developed and developing worlds, who are the primary victims of all the Canute-like efforts to control climate, will take notice.

    http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/236-Lindzen-Choi-2011.pdf

    On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications
    We estimate climate sensitivity from observations, using the deseasonalized fluctuations in sea surface temperatures (SSTs) and the concurrent fluctuations in the top-of-atmosphere (TOA) outgoing radiation from the ERBE (1985-1999) and CERES (2000-2008) satellite instruments. Distinct periods of warming and cooling in the SSTs were used to evaluate feedbacks. An earlier study (Lindzen and Choi, 2009) was subject to significant criticisms. The present paper is an expansion of the earlier paper where the various criticisms are taken into account. The present analysis accounts for the 72 day precession period for the ERBE satellite in a more appropriate manner than in the earlier paper. We develop a method to distinguish noise in the outgoing radiation as well as radiation changes that are forcing SST changes from those radiation changes that constitute feedbacks to changes in SST. We demonstrate that our new method does moderately well in distinguishing positive from negative feedbacks and in quantifying negative feedbacks. In contrast, we show that simple regression methods used by several existing papers generally exaggerate positive feedbacks and even show positive feedbacks when actual feedbacks are negative. We argue that feedbacks are largely concentrated in the tropics, and the tropical feedbacks can be adjusted to account for their impact on the globe as a whole. Indeed, we show that including all CERES data (not just from the tropics) leads to results similar to what are obtained for the tropics alone – though with more noise. We again find that the outgoing radiation resulting from SST fluctuations exceeds the zerofeedback response thus implying negative feedback. In contrast to this, the calculated TOA outgoing radiation fluxes from 11 atmospheric models forced by the observed SST are less than the zerofeedback response, consistent with the positive feedbacks that characterize these models. The results imply that the models are exaggerating climate sensitivity. ….
    ….However, warming from a doubling of CO2 would only be about 1oC (based on simple calculations where the radiation altitude and the Planck temperature depend on wavelength in accordance with the attenuation coefficients of wellmixed CO2 molecules; a doubling of any concentration in ppmv produces the same warming because of the logarithmic dependence of CO2’s absorption on the amount of CO2) (IPCC, 2007). This modest warming is much less than current climate models suggest for a doubling of CO2. Models predict warming of from 1.5oC to 5oC and even more for a doubling of CO2. Model predictions depend on the ‘feedback’ within models from the more important greenhouse substances, water vapor and clouds. Within all current climate models, water vapor increases with increasing temperature so as to further inhibit infrared cooling. Clouds also change so that their visible reflectivity decreases, causing increased solar absorption and warming of the earth….

  62. It’s notable to remember WHY Connaly and the other warmists can’t resist coming here, no matter how much they hate it – This is where all the traffic is!

    He can pontificate all he wants over at his place, but NOBODY except a handful of his bff’s even looks at that site anymore, same for all the other warmist sites.

    Connelly my lie, but Alexa doesn’t!!! (and that must really burn him up!)

  63. One side of this debate is claiming catastrophic climate change due to human emissions of CO2 based on the models they create.

    The other side says we really don’t know enough to make those claims, and are supported by all empirical evidence.

    So…..

    “Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do.”

  64. As the diameter of the circle of our knowledge increases, the circumference of our ignorance increases that much faster–by “pi”, actually.

    I don’t think William ever found his circle and Policy Lass apparently has difficulty recognizing a circle even by consensus.

  65. Arguing with Connelly is like arguing with a 14 year old, who will insist you are shouting, you are stupid, and you are out of touch with how things really are.

  66. Connolley, I know what you’ve done. It does not matter that anyone else knows.

    Regarding stupidity; From a universal standpoint, we are all “stupid”, you just have to be smart enough to know we are all “stupid”. Connolly is too arrogant to recognize that he is “stupid”, too. This is the scariest kind of “stupid”.

    The name “Policy lass” tells me all I need to know about her motivation.

  67. Take a step back please and see what is happening here. Whatever the wrongs of “the Stoat” and his followers, you will not convince any true believer that what WC is talking about is utter rot. Instead one needs an independent framework to evaluate the claims. For instance, for the .

    1. Where pseudo-science has being mistaken for science (e.g. Himalayan Glaciers), has an independent audit see if similar mistakes have been made?
    2. Has the science made efforts to become more rigorous or is there evidence of hyperbole increasingly being used? Has it tried to confront the uncertainties, or suppress them. (e.g. exploring the extent of feedbacks)
    3. Where there are conflicts of interest exposed, have these been eradicated or covered up? For instance, as surface temperature measurement are crucial matrix, have efforts been made to separate data collection and evaluation from those whose create the climate models.
    4. Is the theory underdetermined? That is, are there other theories (or chaotic randomness) that can also explain the observed phenomena? Richard Lindzen enlarged on this issue a few weeks ago in a talk in the House of Commons.
    5. Does the evidence better support a less extreme version of events. e.g. CO2 could be having an impact on temperatures, but nothing likely to be harmful.

    For the non-scientist, who is coming at the issue afresh, the questions they should ask are:-

    1. Does any group encourage me to compare and contrast the arguments?
    2. Are any doubts put to rest, or I am told that only real experts can understand?
    3. Which side puts greatest effort into denigrating the opposition? The example above is not the first time where one group tries to characterise another group as intellectually inferior.
    4. Is there material evidence of any group trying to block debate? Or are both sides happy to debate the issues involved?

  68. The Policy Lass AKA The Policy Wonk AKA Susan lorded it around CA circa 2009. There were many detailed exchanges between her and SM.

  69. Dennis Cox, I followed your link to the discussion regarding the Younger Dryas on Wikipedia where it reads to me that William Connelly is disagreeing with SkepitcalRaptor and has said that the paper you quote should be included. Look at this section for example, William Connelly clearly says “I disagree” when Skeptical Raptor says “The PNAS paper should be disregarded”

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Younger_Dryas_impact_hypothesis#My_own_pet_section

  70. Robbie says:
    April 21, 2012 at 3:46 am
    Well he is right about it. There are a lot of stupids here. Just like in other places on the web.
    If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs.
    I told that to two different bloggers here on WUWT. Both are too reluctant to do so. So therefore these people will never be taken seriously. At least not by me.
    I am sorry, but it is as it is.
    ————————-
    Robbie, you must get up to date about peer review. Are you one of the few people around here who has never read the climategate I & II emails. Where the team openly discusses their dishonesty and how they have a PAL review process and they help each other get grants and awards instead. How they get rid of editors and try to bury evidence and even kill any journal that doesn’t support the “cause”.
    imo As far as peer review, WUWT is the place to discuss your theories. NOBODY gets a free pass here and be ready to show your proof including references. All your data and any code or programs you used to develop your theory are a must. Anything you write at WUWT generally will be questioned. Therefore, even the “Team” reads WUWT.
    ps
    for some real fun reading check out the “harry read me” file.
    you may give up on science altogether.

  71. Beware of statements that begin: “Research shows…”. Surely anything that follows will be void of original thought. Just more noise and ignorance from the echo chamber.

  72. “Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do. They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do. It’s the D-K effect and it’s rampant at both CA and WUWT and Climate Etc. If you’ve ever haunted those sites, you know what I’m talking about.”

    Priceless. He should look in the mirror and also see how rampant it is at Real Climate.

    True ignorance is making a statement you think applies to other people when it actually applies to yourself instead.

  73. davidmhoffer says:
    April 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm
    “I’ve run across Mr Connolley on several blogs and must admit that I’ve never won an argument with him. When I point out facts contrary to his assertion, he goes away.”

    Sounds like a win to me.

  74. Louise, my point there was to show that W.M Connelly isn’t gone from Wikipedia. And while he took the rational science side in that discussion, if you read other exchanges between the two, on other subjects, you’ll see that SkepticalRaptor idolizes the guy.

    I drew the comparison to the GW debate because SR’s ad hominem tactics in attacking the science of the YDIH look like they came right out of Connelly’s playbook.
    .

  75. Helen Hawkins said:

    “Debate Rule #1: Never argue with a fool. Bystanders can’t tell the difference.”

    Debate rule #2 You can’t clean out a sewer without getting pooped on, and shoveling some of it.

  76. Tom B. says:
    April 21, 2012 at 5:55 am
    Policy Lass: PhD in “Social Science”?
    Ah, a Social Scientist. got it. Explains a lot…..

    Gezackly. Any “science” preceded by an adjective isn’t Science.

  77. The visitors and posters at WUWT should heed Mark Twain’s words.
    ————————————————————–
    …there are some things that can beat smartness and foresight. Awkwardness and stupidity can. The best swordsman in the world doesn’t need to fear the second best swordsman in the world; no, the person for him to be afraid of is some ignorant antagonist who has never had a sword in his hand before; he doesn’t do the thing he ought to do, and so the expert isn’t prepared for him.
    – A Connecticut Yankee in King Arthur’s Court

  78. Reading stoats non-sense brings to mind a saying that I ran across in my Japanese studies:

    “Itachi no saigoppe”, the final fart of a weasel, referring to a last deperate action.

  79. > Maybe I should hang out at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ for a while,

    Come on in if you think you’re hard enough. My bet is that without the supporting environment you’re used to here, and the friendly mods, you’re just not up to it.

    davidmhoffer says> I’ve run across Mr Connolley on several blogs and must admit that I’ve never won an argument with him. When I point out facts contrary to his assertion, he goes away.

    Yeah yeah, big words but as usual no actual substance. The invite above is extended to you, too.

    dtbronzich says:> http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley

    I’m proud of that page: its so batshit insane its risible; I link to it from my wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley. And you’re too dump to realise it.

    Adam says:> Please let him know that I would love to discuss the science with him

    Why hello. You know where I live – feel free to come and ask, if you want to.

    Mac the Knife > Let me state this succinctly, Mr Connolley. Ignorance is curable

    Let me help you. I’m curious to see if you’re capable of learning.

    > REPLY – So Judith Curry has been officially declared apostate, then.

    Let me help you: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/08/curry_jumps_the_shark.php

    > MikeN says: William Connolley tried to defend Mann from the attacks of using Tiljander proxies upside-down

    You’re half right. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2009/11/tiljander_again.php for the details.

    Bill Illis says> : Wikipedia had the potential… People like Connelly turned it into an untrustworthy source

    You need evidence for that. And no, recycled inaccurate WUWT posts aren’t good enough.

  80. @WillyCon: “My bet is that without the supporting environment you’re used to here, and the friendly mods, you’re just not up to it.”

    And that’s the trick, now, isn’t it? At WUWT, mods are incredibly patient with people who might come in with a different point of view. On your own turf, you rely on moderation to keep ideas out.

    Did you miss the point of the critiques aimed at you? Or are you just reacting viscerally to the drubbing you’ve been given in public, and acting out?

  81. Come on in if you think you’re hard enough

    Oh good grief. Next we’ll be seeing the “mailed fist” again from our he-man.

    Hope this macho stuff helps you with the ladies.

  82. At, W Connally
    Do you still think the peer review process is working, despite what we’ve seen in the Climategate files and learned that its such a small group of people reviewing each others papers?

  83. Robbie says:
    April 21, 2012 at 3:46 am
    “Well he is right about it. There are a lot of stupids here. Just like in other places on the web.
    If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs.”

    The peer reviewed magazines are increasingly made irrelevant. Like the NASA arsen-bacteria hype, the peer reviewed non-sense has been rebutted in 2 days on the web.

    http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html

    Important scientific blogs are becoming a better medium where ideas can be much faster discussed and reviewed and would eliminate non-sense in terms of days. Especially in cases where peer-review become pal-review…

  84. In response to Bill Illis who said: “Wikipedia had the potential… People like Connelly turned it into an untrustworthy source.”

    W.M. Connelly said:

    “You need evidence for that. And no, recycled inaccurate WUWT posts aren’t good enough.”

    Here’s one fresh piece of evidence that Wikipedia is no longer a trustworthy source. On the YDIH talk page. SkepticalRaptor recently said:

    “Only to shut up everyone did I edit in the article, but it really doesn’t qualify as a WP:RS, by any definition of the word. By the way, the work in Mexico has been debunked by a lot of people smarter than me.”

    His Edit stands as the final edit of the YDIH page before it was closed to edits by anyone. So his unqualified, and skeptically biased opinion was upheld. And his appeal to inappropriate authority in the opinions of some anonymous people he only describes as being smarter than him was held up as a more reliable reference than peer reviewed literature.

    When an appeal to inappropriate authority, or the personal opinions of anyone, regardless of their academic standing is allowed to be seen as a more reliable reference than refereed literature on any given subject the scientific method becomes meaningless. And Wikipedia’s value as a scientific reference falls with it.

  85. I’ve never seen a post from ‘policy lass’ here before. Does she go under the moniker ‘lazy teenager’ by any chance?

    I get the feeling W Connely et al are throwing a bit of a collective tantrum over their failure to get themselves banned here through a continual and deliberate use of smug faux-condescension in their comments. This banning must be necessary for Connely – he desperately needs to be censored by skeptic blogs in order to avoid being consumed by shame in a cloud of his own reeking hypocrisy, which must be becoming increasingly evident to even himself. I’ve never seen any serious attempt by him or fellow propagandists (state funded or otherwise) to persuade anyone of the validity of their arguments (and I’m open to persuasion), just the odd series of evasive hand waving assertions, regurgitation of boilerplate propaganda and nitpicking of trivial points, followed by a swift run to the hills when discovered. Now they know they will called out every time on the hollowness of their arguments and shrillness of their ad hominem, they have nothing left do do but disguise their failure as exasperation and slink off to the safety of their echo chambers and wiki-fiefdoms. See ya later, and try harder next time!

  86. I have to say I’m in two minds about Mr Connolley, on the one hand he is annoying, and his past actions at Wiki have ruined it as a valid source for many many people. On the other hand, it’s great that he has this arrogance, which more often than not, will come back and bite! It’s the same with all the die hard alarmists – their closed minds but open mouths (or keyboards) will forever be recorded.
    Frankly, the non-scientific bloggers hold no interest for me at all (clearly, WMC is largely in that category!). I will only visit sites that display and discuss the science in an open manner where science is king – not simply a scientific stance. To this day, WUWT is easily the best and most wide reaching blog for that, and is the only one I frequent regularly – that kind of reputation must really nark the likes of Connolley – but that’s good isn’t it?
    and as for him posting here, that’s good too – because if we all trundle to his patch, moderation, twisted posts, etc – will likely all ensue – and we will have wasted our time, whilst making yet another alarmist ‘look’ cool. At least here, WUWT keeps the record straight and he (or the likes of Tamino) cannot weasel our words!
    I think of WUWT, as a bit like a block of flats or small village – we have grumpy folk, clever folk, daft folk, funny folk, the worldy experienced, the fixated, opinionated, and of course the resident ‘experts’ (real or imagined), and dare I say, the occasional honest person who simply ‘doesn’t get it’ – but the community spirit is good and accepts all comers. Personally, if only 1 in a thousand visitors ‘gets something’ from the site – and in particular, gets the scientific curiosity and skepticism to query if the ‘concensus’ may just be wrong – then that is a bonus. But more importantly, it is free speech and open discussion, open education and reviews about important matters – something I’m sure many ordinary folk really need to experience more often……
    Keep it up Anthony and all the mods……..

  87. I feel sorry for Connelly, you have to understand that he believes what he believes like iron believes in rust. He’s got big time religion, all he is, is mixed up in his beliefs all that he sees as good in himself is in those beliefs. He is fragile and delicate and oh so full of pain.

    He will burn and crash in time, and possible learn but don’t expect any politeness or understanding until then.the true believer is incapable of seeing themselves as others see them, he has a PURPOSE you see and that trumps everything.

    Point and laugh and be happy in your life. It drives them mad.

  88. There is a pincer movement going on. “Connect the Dots” on the even days, and on the odd days Call people who disagree with you “Stupid.”

    Off hand, I think people who think the D-K Effect explains a lot, are probably people who misunderstand much. There is a perverse self-paradox in the theory worthy of self parody.

    I’m out of step. I’m connecting the dots and following the money every day.

  89. wmconnolley says:
    April 21, 2012 at 11:33 am

    You need evidence for that.
    —————————————–

    Ironic don’t you think. That would have been a good first principle for Wiki editing and for climate science in general.

  90. It is my suspicion that the field is slowly being left to the snarkers and the paid disinformers. In a non statistically significant, and highly subjective way, it seems to me that there has been an erosion in the quantity of scientifically adept alarmist believers commenting on blogs. I don’t know whether it is dawning on the scientifically adept that there is great uncertainty in the science, whether it is understanding that catastrophes are unlikely, or what. Of course, the great misbegotten policy actions roll on, but I believe scientists in general are snapping to the fact that there is pathology in climate science.

    Susan was once fairly formidable. Now she’s becoming pitiable. The Weasel has always been straight out of the Inquisition.
    ==================

  91. william connelley c.v.

    Terminated from a govt job. Check.
    Ran for public office and lost. Check.
    Booted from Real Climate blog. Check.

    But hey, he’s got a wiki article. ;)

  92. “Everbody is ignorant … only on different subjects.” – Will Rogers

    I come here at times so as to be a little less ignorant of the subjects that are covered here. The Mannequins out there make all kinds of claims to justify taking more taxes and more control of people and nations. Even before finding this site or others like it, generally, those claims didn’t ring true. I’ve always been interested in science. I’m no expert but what was being said didn’t seem right, though I couldn’t explain why. I guess I was also spotting some ot the logical fallacies talked about under another heading, though I didn’t know they had names. (i.e. The mainstream media kept talking about “Global Warming”. When it started to become obvious that said warming wasn’t happening, they began to interject “Climate Change” and “Climate Change” has almost replaced “Global Warming”. Now “Extreme Weather” is being mentioned more and more.) So I come here and to other sites like Junkscience.com to become less ignorant. I don’t go to the alarmist sites much at all. I’ve never made a comment on one. To spot a counterfeit bill you don’t study the counterfeits. They change all the time. You study the genuine.

  93. In “Arguing With Stupid People” I read right through to the end thinking that the author was talking about Warmists. Everything made sense until suddenly the dawn arose. I was on the other side of the mirror.
    The repeating “teh” classic online typo was particularly and annoyingly a real clue I think. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…. Probably both.

  94. Mycroft> …peer review process is working, despite what we’ve seen in the Climategate files

    It has some problems; sometimes poor papers get through; but in general it works well. Recently just the prospect of peer review seems to have been enough for “Dr” Roy Spencer to not dare submit his junk. The thing you call “Climategate” shows, insofar as it shows anything on the subject, the process working well. You’ve been sold a variety of pups in that arena, of course.

    >Mycroft says:> only stupid people believe what they are told without looking/checking the facts!
    > 1.no real warming in over a decade
    > 2. acrtic ice appears to be on the rebound
    > 3. sea levels dropping

    All your “facts” are wrong (e.g. warming, sea ice, the sea level one is so bizarre I’ve no idea what you’re on about), but these are most obviously wrong. If you’re going to inhabit the WUWT consensual reality there isn’t much hope for you.

    Dennis Cox says> Bill Illis who said: “Wikipedia had the potential… People like Connelly turned it into an untrustworthy source.” W.M. Connelly said: “You need evidence for that. And no, recycled inaccurate WUWT posts aren’t good enough.” Here’s one fresh piece of evidence that Wikipedia is no longer a trustworthy source. On the YDIH talk page…

    Err, so what is supposed to be the problem there? There was an edit war, which I wasn’t in, and the page got protected, as usually happens in such cases, and now people are having a discussion of what should be on the page. If that is the best evidence you’ve got that I’m Totally Evil you’ve got nothing. If you think you can improve the page, or help resolve the problem, do feel free to contribute there. Of course simply sniping from the sidelines is so much easier.

    >Bill Illis says:> wmconnolley says:> You need evidence for that. >Ironic don’t you think

    More empty words, but still no evidence.

  95. Connelley does what he is paid to do. Whoever is paying him to come here to attempt to score points must have withdrawn their funding. I imagine when they saw how stupid Connelley looked, they decided to stop paying him.

  96. More empty words, but still no evidence.
    ==============
    There will come a time, when a wordsmith will make you eat your words.

  97. So poor William has failed at a government job, failed at public office, failed at real climate. And has failed at blogging having to raise the profile of his site by coming here and drawing attention to himself.
    And his scientific career, well what can we say, maybe only that there is a pattern developing……..?
    And he obviously held a long suppressed desire to work with radios for a living.

    Oh and William, Dr Spencer is a far better scientist than you will ever be, probably the reason he is still employed and getting grants and why you…..well are you.

  98. W.M. Connolley said:

    Err, so what is supposed to be the problem there? There was an edit war, which I wasn’t in, and the page got protected, as usually happens in such cases, and now people are having a discussion of what should be on the page. If that is the best evidence you’ve got that I’m Totally Evil you’ve got nothing. If you think you can improve the page, or help resolve the problem, do feel free to contribute there. Of course simply sniping from the sidelines is so much easier.

    I apologize Mr. Connelly. It is noted that your own comments in that conversation were some of the only sane ones on the YDIH talk page. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

    But the specific challenge you gave was to show evidence that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. And the fact remains that when someone tried to edit a page to reflect an unbiased and truthful representation of the science, using the latest peer reviewed reference, they were attacked and chased off Wikipedia with the most vitriolic of ad hominem because it didn’t jibe with some self styled skeptic personal interpretation of the “consensus”.

    Bottom line: all of the honest to goodness experts on the subject who really were qualified to write an accurate, and unbiased article about all of the science that’s been done in the past five years, and with all references included from both sides of the debate, in the order they were published, and where they fit into the debate were chased off, and discouraged from making any further contribution to the Wikipedia project at all.

    With the result that the unqualified opinions of someone who is only described as being smarter than the editor who wrote it are given by default a higher level of reliable reference on that Wikipedia page than honest to PhD, peer reviewed science.

    And the fact that any editor could get away with such a thing is why Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source.

  99. Just saying..

    If you cite Wikipedia in any scientific/engineering paper.. you get that paper thrown back at you.

    ie. the scientific/engineering community does not support Wikipedia as a reliable source for information.

    but Connelley does…..

    just saying !!

  100. connolloy said:
    “lClimategate” shows, insofar as it shows anything on the subject, the (peer review) process working well. ”
    not delusional much. bald faced lying a lot.

  101. DAMN what a terrific site, educational, entertaining (still laughing over Mac The Knife), full of resilient, intelligent & witty bloggers. Just can’t stay away!!

  102. wmconnolley says:
    April 21, 2012 at 11:33 am

    [,,,]
    You need evidence for that. And no, recycled inaccurate WUWT posts aren’t good enough.

    Problem is, William, the Earth is not cooperating with your CO2 meme. Never has, never will.

    Check and checkmate.

  103. Lefties invent the bloviating falsehoods
    of their ever-excoriating rants
    by simply describing themselves, accurately.
    They must keep plenty of mirrors around.

  104. gnomish says:
    April 21, 2012 at 6:33 pm

    connolloy said:
    “lClimategate” shows, insofar as it shows anything on the subject, the (peer review) process working well. ”
    not delusional much. bald faced lying a lot.

    Actually, gnomish, what you describe (my bold) is indeed why connolloy thinks it’s working well and why he freely admits it.

    And that’s the biggest rebuke one can level at this bloke; he self-incriminates.

  105. Wasn’t it Mencken who once wrote that intellectuals are people who’ve been educated beyond their intelligence? He must have been thinking in particular of PhD. Sociologists.

    I still think Confucious said it best: Argue with a fool and there are two fools arguing.

  106. mpaul says> Connelley does what he is paid to do

    I’m a software engineer. I’m paid for writing software (and, to be open, I get a negligible amount for my my blog, but the pay-per-time-expended for that is low enough that I’d be better off flipping burgers, if I was doing ti for money, which I’m not). Believe it or not, I do this for the love of knowledge and the desire to help others.

    > u.k.(us) says: WMC> More empty words, but still no evidence.
    > There will come a time…

    Yeah yeah, and pigs will fly. Come on, have you really got nothing at all to say?

    > Andy says: And his scientific career, well what can we say

    I suspect that you can say nothing of any value. If you want to read my explanation, you’ll find it via this, from which I’d quote: “much of the main areas of climate science have now become much clearer than when I began to be interested; the obstacles to progress are now very obviously political not scientific.” That is still true; WUWT is a reflection of the political obstacles, if you like.

    Dennis Cox say> I apologize Mr. Connelly. It is noted that your own comments in that conversation were some of the only sane ones on the YDIH talk page. I did not mean to imply otherwise.

    Thanks, although you’re not quite there yet.

    > But the specific challenge you gave was to show evidence that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source.

    You could read it like that, in which case I’d have to give a more nuanced answer. I’ll do that in a moment. But given the context, I think the challenge was really to show that I, personally, had damaged wikipedia – that is something that, for all the bluster and rhetoric on this site, people have failed to do. If I’m as terrible as you lot seem to think, it should be pretty easy to do.

    > And the fact remains that when someone tried to edit a page to reflect an unbiased and truthful representation of the science, using the latest peer reviewed reference, they were attacked and chased off Wikipedia with the most vitriolic of ad hominem because it didn’t jibe with some self styled skeptic personal interpretation of the “consensus”.

    OK, now we’re onto the more nuanced stuff. First of all: your comments about vitriolic ad-homs is well over the top. Compared to the junk that gets thrown at me in the comments here, that discussion was mild. But anyway: The question is, “is the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (a) totally discredited (as the page currently says), (b) implausuble (as the briefer summary at YD#Causes says) or truely brilliant (as “CometHunter” would have us believe)?”. I’d weakly go for (b), but I don’t really know. And the problem is that the science on this appears to be in flux; there is a recent PNAS paper in support. So what wikipedia should do in this case is unclear. Unlike, say, Global Warming where the large issues are clear.

    AndyG55> Just saying.. If you cite Wikipedia in any scientific/engineering paper.. you get that paper thrown back at you.

    How would you know? But scientific papers have different standards from blogs. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, an aggregate, and so is appropriate for general discussions. Scientific papers generally need references to the primary literature, which is different. But whenever someone on a blog needs a ref to some general topic, they use wikipedia – WUWT certainly does. Oddly enough, yo don’t criticise “your side” when they do that. And, yet again, you can find no errors – you’re just on generalities. Wikipedia is by no means perfect – I’ve certainly criticised it very strongly – but you lot don’t seem to be smart enough to find its actual as opposed to imaginary flaws.

    wikeroy> WMConnolley, would you say you are smarter than this guy? http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf

    Morner believes in dowsing, and appears to believe that sea level isn’t rising. Your pet rock is smarter than that – at least it isn’t making any errors.

  107. Kev-in-Uk says:
    April 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm
    “I have to say I’m in two minds about Mr Connolley, on the one hand he is annoying, and his past actions at Wiki have ruined it as a valid source for many many people. On the other hand, it’s great that he has this arrogance, which more often than not, …..”

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/on-the-plus-side-theres-no-reason-for-william-m-connolley-to-comment-here-anymore/#comment-962984

    Thanks Kev for the post. You put it much better then I could have done.

  108. Oh poor William, he labours under the presumption that he is very clever and decides to tell us what to think. So clever indeed he no longer gets grants, is no longer publishing and went off to repair radios. This of course is because climate science is now clearer, thanks to the efforts of our noble green crusader. One has to ask, why given our brave soldiers efforts why distinguished scientists like Prof Pielke Sr or Prof Lindzen even bother to get up in the morning. Has the news of our resident troll geniuses work passed them by? Of course the fearsome fighter Connelly is not interested in the political side of climate science as he informed us, whilst standing for election as a green party candidate.
    Now to anyone with an understanding of modern science, that career trajectory tells you an awful lot. Why Dr Spencer seems to be flying high in comparison.

    WUWT is in no way a ‘political obstacle’ unless you consider telling the truth to be a political obstacle, maybe you do, you lefties tend to dislike truth.

  109. wmconnolley says:
    April 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm

    All your “facts” are wrong (e.g. warming, sea ice, the sea level one is so bizarre I’ve no idea what you’re on about), but these are most obviously wrong. If you’re going to inhabit the WUWT consensual reality there isn’t much hope for you.

    Arctic Sea Ice. Ya know, funny how Grant doesn’t use up to date area in the link above.
    This is reality. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/arctic-ice-area-approaching-abnormally-high-range/

    2. Warming. All I can say is what warming? We have been flat with a negative bias since 1998. Almost to the new magical number of 17 years.

    3. Sea Level. The rate of rise in sea level has been going down.

    I know the above three items are breaking news for Mr. Connolley.

  110. As far as Mr. Connolley posting on this site, it is a great thing. Not many sites allow free and open discussion. WUWT does and is to be commended for such.

  111. Camburn and Mycroft are doing their best to prove Connolley and Policy Lass correct;
    sea level is falling = decreased rate of rise.

    Oh dear.

  112. Camburn says> Arctic Sea Ice.

    Don’t be silly. All the attention is on the summer min; no-one cares greatly about variation in April. Though as I already linked to the trend is downwards in all months. Still: if you believe that the summer extent this year will “bounce back”: care to bet (with real money) whether it’ll be back in the “grey zone” on that pic come September?

    2> We have been flat with a negative bias since 1998.

    Twaddle. Even if we use your cherry-picked 1998, the trend is upwards. Or we could use UAH. C’mon man, get a clue.

    Michael says:> sea level is falling = decreased rate of rise. Oh dear.

    Indeed yes. I don’t believe the decreased rate of rise either, but failing to distinguish “falling” from “decreased rate of rise” is a politicians error.

    On the off-chance that the one or two here really did want to ask the questions they claimed, I wrote you a post for you to ask in -W]

  113. Michael says:
    April 22, 2012 at 7:13 am
    All I see is obfuscation on WC’s part. That is what he is paid to do.

  114. “Believe it or not, I do this for the love of knowledge and the desire to help others.”

    I am decidedly in the “or not” category.

  115. Regarding the repeatedly measured deceleration in sea level rise, Billy C says:

    “I don’t believe the decreased rate of rise either…”

    Total cognitive dissonance. When empirical facts conflict with assumptions, those afflicted with cognitive dissonance simply reject the facts, and resume the belief in their falsified assumptions. Orwell’s “doublethink” is the only thing that keeps their heads from exploding.

    . . .

    David Ball: add me to the “or not” category.

  116. @Kev-in-Uk says:
    April 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm

    Well said. (You’ve already been seconded, so I’ll add a third.)

  117. Bob Tisdale says:
    “Policy Lass? Why should anyone be concerned about the opinion of someone calling herself Policy Lass?”
    Maybe because, she is one of the group believing in, or at least promoting AGW, and unfortunately, actually setting global policy.
    This is the most frustrating aspect of being aware of the lack of legitimate science in the AGW ‘camp’, that they are achieving ruination of our civilization. Their base is built on sand, yet they flourish.

  118. Smokey actually raises an important point here about empirical “facts”, e.g. measurement. When new empirical measurements contradict basic theory, it is a good idea to remeasure more carefully. Excellent examples include the recent are neutrinos faster than light mess, or somewhat ago, the decreasing temperature trend in the UAH MSU temperature extrapolations (the Ts come from a calculation of brightness temperature) which turned out to be an error of not accounting for satellite altitude changes.

    If you want a one line difference between scientists and engineers there it is.

  119. There are highly respected encyclopedia online. It may take a few seconds extra time to find them. It is time well spent. Single reference sources are suspect anyway.

    I think it was Mark Twain who said “Golf is a good walk ruined”. It seems that Wikipedia is a good idea ruined. It is sad because so many good people have spent so much time to make it a good idea realized.

  120. Ken, why don’t you present us ONE scientific paper from the self-proclaimed skeptics “camp” as you call it which shows AGW theory to be false. Just ONE will do, so we have some science to discuss rather than your unshakable pre-conceived belief systems.

    This is the most hilarious aspect of being aware of the lack of legitimate science in the self-proclaimed skeptics ‘camp’, that they have no scientific base at all, their evidence is cherry-picked, their propaganda is loud, and their beliefs remain unshaken.

  121. Rob Dekker:

    “AGW theory”? There is no such thing. Here on the internet’s Best Science site, we like to use accurate scientific terms. Here, this will help.

    AGW is a conjecture; just the first step in the discovery of scientific truth. But it is only a conjecture, because it is not testable or falsifiable. If it were testable and falsifiable it would become a scientific hypothesis – but still not a “theory”. To be a theory, it must have at least one non-trivial datum point, and it must be able to make consistent, accurate predictions. As we can see, AGW cannot do that. The planet is not heating up due to human emissions, as has been widely predicted by the climate alarmist crowd.

    So the AGW conjecture seems to be falsified. That is not a “belief”, as your comment hopefully posits. That is an empirical fact. And it is not “cherry picked”; the fact is that as [harmless, beneficial] CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature refuses to follow. Thus, the rise in CO2 is not causing global warming.

    You make a valiant effort to try and support a failed conjecture. But it is time to accept reality: the demonization of “carbon” has failed. We are all made of carbon. We are not demons. Carbon [as in CO2] is good, not bad. More CO2 is better for the biosphere. It is just a minor trace gas, and a little more is beneficial, not harmful.

    Once you understand that, the whole AGW scare becomes a risible fiction, promoted only by those who financially benefit from it, and the mindless lemmings who follow their leaders’ instructions.

  122. @WMC
    so i was wrong on 1 of the 5 points i posted to you,strange how you did not come back on points
    4 and 5 the missing hotspot and the models gettting further away from real world data observations.

    As for your quote of “consensual reality” would that be the same consensus that inhabits climate science/scientists
    I unlike you will clearly hold my hand up to any mistakes i make, you can not.you were also were far to willing to alter and fabricate your version on WIKI.
    WMC should = weapon of mass censor ship

  123. Wow, they can not force people to submit and accept that their religion is teh One True Faith, so they get pissy and run away. Typical leftard “thinking”.

  124. There are a lot of things I’m ignorant about. I know that. That’s why I surf the Web, and visit dozens of different blogs virtually every day (being retired, I have plenty of time). I’ve visited dozens of sites on “Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever”. This blog is the one that provides me with KNOWLEDGE, usually in a way even I can understand. RealClimate (and most of the other warmist blogs) are nothing but echo chambers, and worthless for the accumulation of true knowledge.

    Mr Connolly/Policy Lass — You are not “brilliant”, you do not add substance, you do not enlighten or inform. You are, in a word, nothing but a nuisance. I ignore you. That’s the only appropriate action to take with people like you.

  125. > mycroft says> so i was wrong on 1 of the 5 points i posted to you,strange how you did not come back on points 4 and 5 the missing hotspot and the models gettting further away from real world data observations.

    If you’re going to spam random errors you can’t expect me to address them all in detail: like I said, those were “most obviously wrong.”

    For point 5, I’m afraid I’ve no idea what you’re talking about – please don’t assume that the real world is aware of all your faux-skeptic memes. Supply links; don’t be lazy.

    For point 4 – I recognise your meme, but its wrong. Explaining it all would be complex (and I don’t see why I should bother; you just ref’d your meme unthinkingly); instead I’ll just point you at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html

    > I unlike you will clearly hold my hand up to any mistakes i make, you can not.

    As far as I know, I haven’t made any mistakes that are relevant to this discussion. If you want to whinge about wiki you’ll need to provide details (diffs are best); vague generalities or refs to inaccurate WUWT posts don’t cut it.

    Mike Weatherford > This blog is the one that provides me with KNOWLEDGE

    Ah, you’re looking for the TRUTH. But how will you know when you find it? You’re not competent to evaluate any of the science, so how do you know what is valid or not? Do you trust WUWT because it panders to your prejudices?

    > Mr Connolly… I ignore you

    A self-refuting statement. But do feel free to make it true in future.

    REPLY: As a British alarmist yourself, I’d like to welcome you to comment on this article Mr. Connolley: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/breaking-james-lovelock-back-down-on-climate-alarm/

  126. Connolley is a big proponent of the “going Emeritus” rhetorical strategy. So, when an eminent scientist, who might not have worked in atmospheric sciences but has loads of experience with data handling, computer models, etc as well as practical experience with the “sociology of science” like the corrupting influence of huge flows of grant money for example, cries foul over outrageous AGW predictions, William jumps in and…calls names. The reasoning of aforementioned famous scientist can be swept under the rug since he has “gone emeritus”. From his lofty perch as a has-been (or maybe never-was) he is lord and arbiter of the scientific universe and scourge of the accomplished elite.

    He has, of late, taken this prediliction to the extreme by attacking Aristotle as a dummy. I guess it makes sense, he is probably the most emeritus of the emeriti. So William feels not the least bit silly attacking Aristotle for not having all of physics figured out 2400 years ago (and with no measuring instruments lying about).

    William’s internet pal Annan suffers from the same problem of ego inflation. His web site features a recent attack on prominent scientists who dare to not agree with Connolley and Annan. I’m sure such bravado gives a frisson to the acolytes, but to the huge majority of sane technically-educated readers it confirms the bankruptcy of the view they push.

  127. @- Gail Combs says: April 23, 2012 at 10:22 am
    “ROTFLMAO… You must be very new to the debate. 900+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarm”

    And if you think poptech’s list really provides ‘support’ for arguments against AGW theory then I can only assume the DK effect is working…

    Pick three and show how they ‘support’ skepticism of AGW.
    The guy still has a big section on the existence and magnitude of the MWP when such data just indicate that climate sensitivity may be larger than current estimates.
    (the warmer, more globally synchronous the MWP the higher climate sensitivity must be.)

  128. @wmc
    yet more condescending hand waving,must have be painfull watching the gravy train pass you by.

  129. izen says:

    “the warmer, more globally synchronous the MWP the higher climate sensitivity must be.”

    Thanx for your opinion. But there are more credible explanations, as Prof Richard Lindzen has pointed out.

  130. [SNIP: Dr. Connolley, you've taken a lot of flack here and allowing you to respond is fair, but you may not abuse other commenters with this sort of language. Kindly resubmit without the abuse. -REP]

  131. @- Smokey – Re:- climate sensitivity
    “But there are more credible explanations, as Prof Richard Lindzen has pointed out.”

    Have you got a link ? I have yet to see any explanation from Lindzen of the contradiction in his description of climate sensitivity being small – or negative at present, but large for glacial/interstadel transitions and the MWP?

    @-Smokey says: April 23, 2012 at 4:35 am
    “AGW is a conjecture; just the first step in the discovery of scientific truth. But it is only a conjecture, because it is not testable or falsifiable. If it were testable and falsifiable it would become a scientific hypothesis – but still not a “theory”. To be a theory, it must have at least one non-trivial datum point, and it must be able to make consistent, accurate predictions.”

    Not historically accurate.
    AGW was a conjecture when proposed by Arrhenius around 1900 and a hypothesis when re-formulated by Callender in the 1930s. It took all the known data on energy flows and climate, modeled the outcome and made the novel prediction that if human emissions of CO2 raised the atmospheric levels then that would cause a warming of the climate.

    Quite when AGW became a theory is open to interpretation. Perhaps in the late 1950s when the inability of the oceans to absorb the extra CO2,(Revelle) the measured rise,(Keeling) and the accurate calculation/measurement of how energy transfers within an atmosphere with increasing CO2 were made.(Plass)
    Or perhaps you would hold out for the confirmation of a non-trivial valid datum like the predictions made in the 1981 paper by Hansen et al –
    Summary. The global temperature rose by 0.20C between the middle 1960’s and
    1980, yielding a warming of 0.4°C in the past century. This temperature increase is
    consistent with the calculated greenhouse effect due to measured increases of
    atmospheric carbon dioxide. Variations of volcanic aerosols and possibly solar
    luminosity appear to be primary causes of observed fluctuations about the mean trend
    of increasing temperature. It is shown that the anthropogenic carbon dioxide warming
    should emerge from the noise level of natural climate variability by the end of the
    century, and there is a high probability of warming in the 1980’s. Potential effects on
    climate in the 21st century include the creation of drought-prone regions in North
    America and central Asia as part of a shifting of climatic zones, erosion of the West
    Antarctic ice sheet with a consequent worldwide rise in sea level, and opening of the
    fabled Northwest Passage.

    http://thedgw.org/definitionsOut/..%5Cdocs%5CHansen_climate_impact_of_increasing_co2.pdf

    Or perhaps you prefer the direct measurement of the changing energy flows with the altered spectrum seen in satellite data and the altered energy seen in the down-welling LW radiation from the BSRN.

    I am sure that you could contrapt a version of the AGW theory that is unfalsifiable, but that would be your version, it is … better to engage with the version that is in common use amongst the vast majority of the scientifically informed. The examples I give above are just some of the novel predictions made by the original AGW hypotheis that have provided non-trivial validating datum points.

    I see you have made another error of projection in your last paragraph …
    “Once you understand that, the whole ANTI – AGW scare becomes a risible fiction, promoted only by those who financially benefit from it, and the mindless lemmings who follow their leaders’ instructions.”
    Fixed it for you! -grin-

  132. wmconnolley says:> SNIP:

    Ha ha, so much for “no censorship”. But I do have to thank you for reminding me that your pledges are worthless.

    > Kindly resubmit without the abuse. -REP

    Hypocrite. Just examine the content free twaddle there is up above.

    [REPLY: Dr. Connolley, it is always a temptation to let a commenter choke on his own bile. I have snipped a number of commenters who were abusive toward you, and I've done you a favor by not allowing you to poison your own case with gratuitous insult. Present your response without it. -REP]

  133. @izen:”(the warmer, more globally synchronous the MWP the higher climate sensitivity must be.)”

    Isn’t that only true if you accept the premise that CO2 concentration fluctuations drive global average temperature anomalies, rather than the other way around?

    After all, isn’t it possible for the MWP to happen without being driven by CO2?

    @ wmconnolley:”You’re not competent to evaluate any of the science, so how do you know what is valid or not?”

    How did you decide that you were competent?

  134. @izen:”. It took all the known data on energy flows and climate, modeled the outcome and made the novel prediction that if human emissions of CO2 raised the atmospheric levels then that would cause a warming of the climate.”

    So would a falsification be increasing CO2 emissions, but a global average temperature anomaly that was not increasing as much?

    http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3vgl/from:1998/to:2012/plot/esrl-co2/from:1998/to:2012/normalise

    If that *isn’t* a falsification, can you state what would be? Are there any observations that are *not* consistent with your hypothesis that you would not argue some ad hoc special pleading for?

  135. wmconnolley says:
    April 23, 2012 at 11:59 am

    I think this post suggests Mr Connolley is getting riled, no?

    and then
    wmconnolley says:
    April 23, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    ”…pledges are worthless, etc..’
    My goodness – someone has rattled your cage! And, for the record, content free twaddle without abuse is acceptable because we all have to learn sometime (cue song..LOL.). Abusive content is futile and merely illustrates the incompetence of the writer.

    To our wonderful mods (and Anthony, of course) – is there any way to partially snip and enable a flavour of ‘bad’ posts to peek through. It’s just that, in the context of WMC’s drollness, and his clear loss of cool and ‘face’ – wouldn’t a ‘flavour’ be enough to reveal his true idiosyncratic colours to the rest of us?
    just askin….

  136. Oh, this is rich: Billy Connolley is sniveling because his comment was snipped for violating site policy.

    Earth to Connolley: censoring every scientific comment skeptical of CAGW on Wikipedia like you did for years is not the same thing as keeping your comments within policy guidelines.

    And responding by writing: “Hypocrite. Just examine the content free twaddle there is up above” might be enough to get someone else’s comment snipped. But you apparently get kid glove treatment because the mods know you will scream like a spoiled child. Just like you did here. It is obvious that you are still trying to get your comment snipped, so you can play the martyr. So who is the true hypocrite? Just look in the mirror, Billy.

    . . .

    krischel says:

    “After all, isn’t it possible for the MWP to happen without being driven by CO2?”

    That appears to be the case during the MWP, and the RWP, and the Minoan WP, and the Holocene Optimum, etc.

    izen also tries to argue that there is an AGW “theory”. Nice try, izen, but a major fail. Scientific theories make consistent, accurate predictions, while the AGW conjecture has been consistently wrong.

    izen wears me out posting his repeatedly debunked nonsense about rising sea levels and the rest of it. Whenever I post verifiable evidence that refutes alarmist nonsense, someone like izen comes back and repeats their globaloney as if it hasn’t been debunked by empirical evidence. Stuck on stupid doesn’t even begin to describe that kind of religious pseudo-science belief system.

    izen did ask for a Lindzen reference, even though he muddied the waters by injecting a sensitivity comment that I never made. Even so, here is Lindzen’s straightforward explanation:

    For small changes in climate associated with tenths of a degree, there is no need for any external cause. The earth is never exactly in equilibrium. The motions of the massive oceans where heat is moved between deep layers and the surface provides variability on time scales from years to centuries. Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.

    Assuming that CO2 caused the MWP is the same old argumentum ad ignorantium: “Since I can’t think of any other cause besides CO2, then CO2 must be the cause.” Truly an argument from ignorance.

  137. I tried taking this discussion back to the “Policy Lass” thread but it only took a couple of comments to earn the “Moderators” displeasure.

    I can’t imagine what a clueless, humble camel can say that is too dangerous for William Connolley’s flock to hear.

    That said, I am miffed with Anthony Watts. We need Connolley here. His scientific arguments provide a beautiful contrast with some of the hard scientists on this site.

    REPLY: You’ve got the wrong idea, Connelley wasn’t dis-invited, I just said he’d had no reason to comment anymore since he views us all as “hopelessly stupid” – Anthony

  138. @-Smokey
    “Assuming that CO2 caused the MWP is the same old argumentum ad ignorantium: “Since I can’t think of any other cause besides CO2, then CO2 must be the cause.” Truly an argument from ignorance.”

    It certainly is ignorance, we know that the MWP was not caused by an increase in CO2 because the C14 dating correction curve shows that CO2levels, and solar activity did not alter significantly over that period.
    But warming of more than a few decimal points for more than a decade requires a source of energy, a climate forcing. You can not warm the climate without an energy imbalance. Lindzen’s claim that-
    “Recent work suggests that this variability is enough to account for all climate change since the 19th Century.” would require links to good science before its anything more than a fringe opinion.

    @-krischel Re- link to temp from 1998…
    “If that *isn’t* a falsification, can you state what would be? Are there any observations that are *not* consistent with your hypothesis that you would not argue some ad hoc special pleading for?

    Not long enough for a 0.14degC/decade to be detectable above the climate ‘noise’. Especially if you cherry pick the start point as the warmest El Nino in the record.

    Yes, or course there are observations that would falsify, or at the very least cast doubt on AGW, if the climate returned to 1980s temperature levels, the ocean heat content and sea level started falling as fast as they have increased over the next decade then I would look for additional processes that were negating the CO2 energy imbalance measured by satellite and BSRN.

    What observations would YOU find persuasive of a real and significant climate effect from CO2 – or are you entirely resistant to evidence?

  139. @izen: “Not long enough for a 0.14degC/decade to be detectable above the climate ‘noise’. ”

    So if we found any other historical period, that was longer than my 1998-2012 period, where CO2 continued to rise, but global average temperature remained mostly flat or dropped, would *that* be a falsification?

    Do you accept that we see this in the ice core record with CO2 lagging temperature changes, or do you have another ad hoc special pleading?

    “What observations would YOU find persuasive of a real and significant climate effect from CO2″

    Well, first off, it would have been much more persuasive if the ice core records always showed global average temps lagging CO2 rather than the other way around. But more importantly, what would be persuasive to me would be a complete list of necessary and sufficient falsifiable hypothesis statements, and a concerted effort to *find* those observations in either the proxy record, the thermometer record, or in future observations. One can become a believer in psychics if you walk into Madame Zoorik’s tent, and she tells you both your life’s story and your future with uncanny accuracy – but should I be convinced by observing that? Should I simply accept the evidence of her prognostications coming true as proof that she has psychic powers?

    Imagine your question as, “what observations would YOU find persuasive of a real and significant climate effect from natural variation?” If I were to put it in terms of falsifiability, what observations could I have that would show that there is no such thing as natural climate change? Perhaps a paleo record that never changes? Perhaps a thermometer record that never changes? Of course it is *trivial* for us to falsify that hypothesis, and we generally consider natural climate change the null hypothesis.

  140. @izen: “we know that the MWP was not caused by an increase in CO2 because the C14 dating correction curve shows that CO2levels, and solar activity did not alter significantly over that period.”

    Accuracy of paleo records aside, what makes you think that the MWP could only be caused by CO2 or solar activity? Have you given any thought, to say, ocean circulation patterns, or cosmic ray influences on cloud albedo, or even just variation in cloud albedo? Is your base assumption that outside of the forcings you can imagine, that there are no other causes of natural climate change?

  141. @- krischel says: April 24, 2012 at 8:34 am
    “Accuracy of paleo records aside, what makes you think that the MWP could only be caused by CO2 or solar activity? Have you given any thought, to say, ocean circulation patterns, or cosmic ray influences on cloud albedo, or even just variation in cloud albedo? Is your base assumption that outside of the forcings you can imagine, that there are no other causes of natural climate change?”

    What makes you think I attribute the MWP (whatever its magnitude or synchronocity) to solar or CO2 changes?

    I suspect the source of your confusion is in your misunderstanding of the phrase ‘natural climate change’

    Its a description, NOT an explanation.

    Climate changes, and it does so as the result of a physical process. all climate change is ‘natural’ as it is an effect with a cause. the only alternative would be supernatural climate change, perhaps the result of your psychic Madame Zoorik or the intervention of the ‘intelligent designer’.

    Yes, I have given some thought to ocean circulation patterns, or cosmic ray influences on cloud albedo, or even just variation in cloud albedo. As have the scientific community.

    To qualify as a cause any physical process must change the energy balance of the climate. But the problem with invoking any of these speculative unknown alternative causes is that they ALL have to satisfy the LAW of themodynamics. Just what causes cloud albedo changes that affect the energy balance, retaining energy at night but reflecting sunlight, would constrain the amount of forcing it could provide. That again requires some estimate of climate sensitivity to any source of energy imbalance to derive the amount of climate change it would cause.
    Cosmic ray in fluence has two counts against it. there is a clear temperature trend when GCR levels have shown negligable variation. There is no evidence of significant climate change during the Lachamps PME 40,000 years ago when a collapse of the geomagnetic field allowed a very large increase in GCRs to occur as seen in the Be10 record in ice cores, but with no associated significant climate change.

    IF you are using ‘natural’ in the sense of not human caused then you STILL need a non-human cause for the climate variation. Its a pretty poor ‘null hypothesis’ that assumes that some unspecified and unknown cause is more credible than a measured, quantified and consistant explanation which just happens to invoke a human source for the change in energy imbalance.

  142. izen:

    Lindzen is right. The oceans hold immense amounts of energy and, therefore, small changes in their distribution of energy may be observed as large changes in global temperature. This is an empirical fact which is observed, for example as ENSO.

    We cannot rule out the possibility that ocean variations are entirely responsible for observed global temperature variations such as the MWP and LIA unless and until we gain some basic understanding of how and why effects such as ENSO, PDO and AMO occur.

    Meanwhile, the only evidence we have concerning the effect of atmospheric CO2 concentration on global temperature is that this effect is so small that it cannot be discerned. This does not disprove the possibility that this is a non-trivial effect, but there is no evidence – none, zilch, nada – that it is non-trivial.

    Hence, there are at least two possibilities pertaining to the cause(s) of the MWP and LIA, and neither of them can be disproved. One of these two (i.e. warming from ocean variation) is observed to have a be a significant and measured effect. The other (i.e. warming from atmospheric CO2 concentration change) has not been observed although radiative theory implies it probably has has some effect on global temperature.

    That which is observed exists, but that which is not observed can only be said to possibly exist.

    So, I write to offer some friendly advice before you continue this conversation concerning the (non) indication of the magnitude of climate sensitivity to CO2 provided by the MWP; i.e.

    It is better to be thought a fool than to say something which proves you are a fool.

    Richard

Comments are closed.