‘Tabloid climatology’ may be the real reason for the Marcel Leroux – William Connolley Wikipedia dustup

As WUWT readers know, a climatologist who bucked the consensus trend had his profile summarily deleted at Wikipedia thanks to the William Connolley effect as outlined in “Death by Stoat“. It appears that Connolley had to justify his own guilty feelings on the issue by posting an explanation on his own blog titled “Death of a Salesman”. I’m only a bystander in all this, but the Wikipedia deletion did pique my interest and I went looking for some references about Leroux simply out of curiosity over “what do this guy do/not do to merit this”? I think I found the answer; Connolley and his friends simply didn’t like the stinging criticisms Leroux made and sought ways to diminish them. I think WMC and friends have now invoked the Streisand effect instead.

We have a new (but coined long ago) term thanks to a review of Leroux’s book. The reviewer coined the phrase: “Tabloid climatology”.  Pierre Gosselin touched on the label last year as well. This is an excerpt from his book, as documented by Thayer Watkins at San Jose State University, reposted below:

==============================================

The Critique of Tabloid Climatology by Marcel Leroux

Marcel Leroux, a French climatologist, has written a very interesting and valuable exposé of the climatology that has come to dominate the attention of the media and government policy makers in this era of global warming hysteria. Leroux is an empirical climatologist and thus a real climatology who is a professor at a university in France and the head of a climatological research institute. His book is entitled in translation Global Warming — Myth or Reality? : The Erring Ways of Climatology.

Leroux is outraged at what has happened to the respectable field of climatology in the past twenty years since the U.S. federal government started pouring about a billion dollars a year into global warming research. This level of funding provided the climate modelers each with several million dollars a year and what the U.S. government got was tabloid climatology because those research grants were dependent upon producing sensationalistic, apocalyptic pronouncements. The tabloids do not have to exaggerate these sensationalistic pronouncement; they only have to assert that the apocalyse is coming next summer instead of fifty years in the future.

Leroux’s book is solid empirical climatology but in the introduction he allows himself to express his outrage in some fine rhetoric. For example, he says

Recent happenings in the field of climatology give cause for complaint, as do the approaches of some of its practioners, especially those who, lacking any real qualification, claim to belong to the climatological community, but give it an erroneous image. It is galling to see the media ‘hype’ which ensues every time a meeting of the IPCC [Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change] is announced, every time an extra drop of rain falls here, or fails to fall there, or every time a door slams because the wind is blowing a bit more strongly than is ‘normal’. How irksome it is to hear the simplistic slogans, and sometimes barefaced lies, churned out yet again; to have to put up with the Diktat of an ‘official line’ and the parroted pronouncements of the ‘climatically correct’, numbing all reflection. It becomes over more difficult to stomach the kind of well-intentioned naïvety or foolishness which, through the medium of tearful reportage, tugs at our heart strings with tales of doomed polar bears, or islanders waiting for the water to lap around their ankles …Hardly a week goes by without some new ‘scoop’ of this nature filling our screens and the pages of our newspapers. ‘Global warming’, caused by the ‘greenhouse effect’, is our fault, just like everything else, and the message/slogan/misinformation becomes ever more simplistic, ever cruder! It could not be simpler: if the rain falls or drought strikes; if the wind blows a gale or there is none at all; whether it’s heat or hard frost; it’s all ‘because of the greenhouse effect’, and we are to blame! An easy argument but stupid! The Fourth Report of the IPCC might just as well decree the suppression of all climatological textbooks, and replace them in our schools and universities with its press communiqués!

Leroux is not impressed with the output of the IPCC:

We do have to resort to complicated models to tell us that an increase in CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature, a simple of rule of thumb, a ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculation, will suffice.

Leroux might have noted that the IPCC managed to leave out all negative feedback effects while included the positive feedback ones. It also manages to justify leaving out dissident opinions. After referring to an example of the suppression of alternate climatological views by a French government official, Leroux says

This process of the elimination of opponents, which is general at all climatic conferences, has been denounced, notably at an IPCC meeting at the Moscow Academy of Sciences in July 2004. Some British scientists, great proponents of the official doctrine, committed ‘intellectual terrorism’ by excluding ‘climato-skeptics’ from the proceedings even though they were internationally recognized: modeller R. Lindzen, entomologist P. Reiter, oceanographer N.-A. Mörner and meteorologist R. Khandehar. One of the principal advisors to the Russian government, A. Illinarinov, called it ‘totalitarian ideology’! And is not the idea of censorship unacceptable in so-called democratic regimes?

Because Leroux knows that the standard ploy of the tabloid climatologists and the religio-political movement they have spawned is to assert that any critic is either a crackpot or in the pay of the oil companies or both. He therefore gives some personal information that ordinary would not appear in a scholarly work. As he puts it:

I was going to omit certain facts, but the passionate nature of the debate suggests that they be mentioned. [I am] Doubly a doctor, from University and from the state, in Climatology, I am a member of the Société Météorologique de France and the American Meteorological Society. As a Professor of Climatology, my employer is the French Republic, which has adopted the official religion of ‘climate change’, to which I do not adhere. I am not beholden to any ‘slush fund’, and my Laboratoire de Climatologique, Risques, Environment (LCRE), in spite of its links with the Centre National de la Rechererche Scientifique (CNRS), has never received any funding from this state institution, certainly by reason of heresy. I am neither a militant nor an armchair ‘eco-warrior’, but I live in the countryside, near the littlel village of Vauvenargues, near Aix-en-Provence, on the ‘Grand Site Sainte Victoire’ (immortalized by the painter Paul Cézanne), a listed and protected area of mountains and wild forests. I grow vegetables in my (small) ‘organic’ kitchen garden. I am naturally inclined to question things, and I am basically a Cartesian, living by Réne Descartes’ primary precept of ‘never assuming anything to be true which I did not know evidently to be such’ (Discours de la Méthode, 1637).

==============================================

I think WMC and his friends just didn’t like this critique, and so decided that Leroux must be marginalized. After being marginalized (and dead, unable to defend himself) they made a case for deletion which now appears to be backfiring on them because I have no doubt now that this will be picked up elsewhere.

The deleted Wikipedia page about Leroux continues existence at Lucy Skywalker’s page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux.

You can also get Leroux’s book from Amazon here, but be prepared for sticker shock. Perhaps his estate will find a second publisher so more people can read it.

We also have WMC’s efforts to thank for helping bring ‘Tabloid climatology’ to the forefront of the discussion. Perhaps someone can attribute it’s soon to be widespread use to him on WMC’s Wikipedia page.

Better yet, ask the people who run Wikipedia why WMC was allowed to return after being banned. Nothing has changed and he’s still acting as a self righteous gatekeeper, just as before.

108 thoughts on “‘Tabloid climatology’ may be the real reason for the Marcel Leroux – William Connolley Wikipedia dustup

  1. “You can also get Leroux’s book from Amazon here, but be prepared for sticker shock. Perhaps his estate will find a second publisher so more people can read it.”

    Curiously, when I go to Amazon and click to look inside, I seem to be able to read the contents *of the entire book!* I don’t know if that’s determined by the publisher, a mistake on Amazon’s part, or just a glitch in the software that will probably never be repeated, but if other people can see this also, it would appear there’s no need for a second publisher.

  2. Why do these Warmists always come across as odious, thin skinned, despotic creatures with risible social graces, particularly in their online personas?

  3. Thayer Watkins (@San Jose State University),

    Your article on Leroux’s book was very enlightening.

    Assuming you are associated with SJ State, do you do outreach to the Santa Clara County community on such topics? The reason I am asking is that I live in San Jose and am interested in any outreach you have.

    John

  4. Marcel Leroux is an important figure who has become less fashionable over the years, perhaps because of the sort of antics described here. I recently quoted Leroux in my recent article as follows;

    “Global’ records are much less reliable than local ones due to the manner in which they are assembled, and the reality of a meaningful single global temperature is the subject of much debate, as observed by French climatologist Marcel Leroux. ‘Yet, they know very well that there is not one “global” climate, but a large variety of climates, depending on latitude, geographic conditions, and atmospheric dynamics.’ (18)

    Brown and Jones commented on the many instances of local cooling trends, seemingly recording different- and cooling- climates to that observed in the global – and warming- record (19)”

    http://judithcurry.com/2011/12/01/the-long-slow-thaw/

    Leroux is well worth exploring and makes many –what should be obvious-points about the climate.
    tonyb

  5. If you look at the list of french scientists. Why aren’t people like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Jouzel being deleted when they have a much smaller article with only 1 reference? Maybe someone should go through and flag all these smaller, less referenced (and less notable) articles on french scientists for deletion. If they are going to go after one, why not the full gander? Apply the rules equally.

  6. Wikipedia has a reputation as being incomplete and biased.

    It isn’t exactly what you would call an authoritative web-pedia. I’m sure Mr Connolley is quite at home editing within.

  7. Heck, what about this article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89tienne_Juillard . It is literally one sentence, no reference, and no other articles link to it. Someone should flag that for deletion, for sure.

    Hopefully, if enough of this “house cleaning” is done, WP will wake up and notice how ridiculous things are getting. We want more information, the more the better, deleting important info is a loss for the public. But I’m sure certain individuals know that, and are abusing that fact on purpose.

  8. Interesting Factoid. When I google “Marcel_Leroux”
    This WUWT page is #3.
    Lucy Skywalker’s page is #8.
    Amazon page for his book is #7.
    Now Google is known for custimization of search results. So take this with a grain of salt.

  9. Ged says:
    October 11, 2012 at 9:54 am
    “Hopefully, if enough of this “house cleaning” is done, WP will wake up and notice how ridiculous things are getting. ”

    You mean Jimbo himself will give one of his apparatchiks a slap on the wrist and a two month timeout?

    Yeah, I think so as well.

  10. NPR interviewed a Wikipedia official last week. The host asked something like, Would it be fair to say that Wikipedia is not a collection of facts, but rather a collection of what people write about facts?” The answer was in the affirmative.

  11. Curious to know if indeed Connolly was banned from comment here? If so, what was the reason? I know that it typically takes an awful lot.

  12. I’d love to see Connolly try to remove Leroux over at the Fench language Wikipedia, they’d stick his private parts into a guillotine!
    Indeed it will be interesting when this does come to the attention of L’order des Palmes Academiques and Connolly’s admited xenophobia towards the French, from his turgid blog

    [As a proper English-type person I am naturally rabidly anti-foreigner…]

    Could I just say as another Englishman, that Connolly’s contempt for foreigners is an indication of his overall cognitive ability, ie lacks maturity, experience and depth…

  13. Doesn’t the controversy over his Wikipedia deletion now make Leroux even more notable and hence more worthy of being included?
    Is “irony” the word I’m looking for?

  14. Beesaman:
    “Could I just say as another Englishman, that Connolly’s contempt for foreigners is an indication of his overall cognitive ability, ie lacks maturity, experience and depth…”

    Seconded.

  15. pat says:
    October 11, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Warmists have infected every area of Wikipedia. Ready to pounce on anything and use it as confirmation if CAGW.
    I do note that it is still with the Antarctica is melting and therefore that proves CAGW instead of this week’s meme: we told you that ice would grow in Antarctica because of AGW.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antarctica#Effects_of_global_warming

    And they’re pumping out the press releases to try to hammer this home.

    http://news.yahoo.com/experts-global-warming-means-more-antarctic-ice-194009890.html

    Funny thing is, even at Yahoo! they’ may be throwing the BS flag. That article is under the headline:

    Global warming leads to, er, more ice?

  16. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux

    There is the deletion page at wiki. You can see the comments and process. Connelly’s words could not be more clear – that he is doing exactly what he was banned for in the past.

    He strongly advocated for deletion because he believed the original posting was so Leroux’s name could be included in a list of skeptical scientists:

    delete – the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers … William M. Connolley (talk) 08:11, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

    [Update: in fact that’s not quite accurate: the article was originally created purely to support his inclusion in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming; see [11] and User:Mariojalves contributions around then William M. Connolley (talk) 20:07, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

    Having 2/3 of the lede taken up by GW denialism is a problem. Even if you believe it, its clearly not a reasonable representation of his importance. Or alternatively, if that really is all he is notable for, he isn’t notable William M. Connolley (talk) 08:59, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

    Connolly states his position quite clearly. And it is equally clear he is doing exactly what he was banned for prior. He could have simply corrected the portion he had issue with, instead he deleted the entire section.

    And then advocated for deletion of the entire article – for the primary stated reason – initially, that “the article has been hijacked by global warming deniers” – which should have been at worst a correction if he felt excessive or unwarranted … and then because by his grand proclamation, the article was “was originally created purely to support his inclusion in List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming.”

    He could not offer a better indictment of his return to the past practices he was banned for if he tried.

  17. It’s heading towards Christmas and we’ll all be looking for ideas for presents. Would it be possible to have a page here with suggested books so that we can spread the word to our family and friends? I’m sure Leroux’s book would make a good start. You could even call the page Tabloid climatology.

  18. pat says:

    October 11, 2012 at 9:13 am

    Warmists have infected every area of Wikipedia.

    It should be call Sickipedia then.

  19. beesaman says October 11, 2012 at 10:14 am

    I’d love to see Connolly try to remove Leroux over at the Fench language Wikipedia, they’d stick his private parts into a guillotine!

    Indeed it will be interesting when this does come to the attention of L’order des Palmes Academiques and Connolly’s admited xenophobia towards the French, from his turgid blog

    So, we may have a chance to see in living color how war among ‘the civilized’ start after all?

    I wondered aloud on the other thread if WMC feared treading on the French version of the Leroux wiki page; it would appear he knows ‘the size’ of his sandbox after all …

    .

  20. If the hamlets of Ugley and Nasty England can have a Wiki page, why can’t Marcel Leroux? The only thing of note that I can find about Ugley is that the “Ugley Womens’ Institute” changed its name to the “Womens’ Institute (Ugley Branch).” (Unfortunately, I was unable to determine if Nasty, UK has a “Nasty Womens’ Institute.”)

    I don’t see why a Wiki page should be deleted in the first place. The only reason to delete anything is if it is false or inaccurate. And then only the inaccurate information should be deleted, not the entire page. I have to wonder if Connolly and friends would also burn books and erase all science or history they disagree with if they had the chance.

  21. Billy Liar says October 11, 2012 at 9:26 am

    Apparently WMC is holding 2 used copies of the book and selling them on Amazon Marketplace!

    NEITHER of which he has publicly claimed to have read! … making this statement applicable:

    “There is a principle which is a bar against all information, which is proof against all arguments, and which cannot fail to keep a man in everlasting ignorance—that principle is contempt prior to investigation.” -unattributed (parts attributable back to William Paley)

    .

  22. The fact that Connolly wasn’t banned from Wikipedia for life, but on the contrary is still permitted to edit articles on climate scientist when he has no qualifications in that discipline, says all you need to know about the wiki. This truly is Orwellian stuff! And very depressing

    It’s a shame btw there are so many typos in the piece above; it would look more authoritative if they were remedied

  23. Louis says October 11, 2012 at 11:04 am


    I have to wonder if Connolly and friends would also burn books and erase all science or history they disagree with if they had the chance.

    In a HEARTBEAT and (I’ve got to think) with great RELISH; All-the-while clothed in the appropriate attire (something in the neighborhood of matching brown shirt and trousers) …

    .

  24. P Wilson says:
    October 11, 2012 at 9:46 am

    “Wikipedia has a reputation as being incomplete and biased.

    It isn’t exactly what you would call an authoritative web-pedia. I’m sure Mr Connolley is quite at home editing within.”

    It keeps him off the streets and out of trouble.

    (PS He has run off with all the sarc tags)

  25. Anthony

    Is William M. Connolley banned as he claims? I’m sure i saw him postig here only a month or two ago. Also R Gates also seems to think he’s banned-is that so?. I always found him quite reasonable .
    tonyb

    REPLY:
    I suggested to Mr. Connolley that he was now a permanent resident of the “troll bin” due to his thread baiting behavior. What that means is that his posts always go to the inspection que as opposed to the moderation que. He might still get a post through from time to time. If he wants out of that troll bin, some behavior change is needed.

    As for R. Gates, he has chosen to voluntarily stay away. This stems from a tif that developed where he criticized me on other blogs, and I told him that if he wants to criticize me, he needs to be man enough to put his name to his words since his issue with me were about my disclosure of things he felt important. He isn’t very reasonable outside of WUWT if you look.

    He’s a government wonk in Colorado, and his name isn’t R. Gates, that’s a fake name. He doesn’t want to use his real name and risk criticism of his government funded position. I don’t have a lot of tolerance for people that demand personal detail things from me behind a fake name. There are sometimes valid reasons to use a fake name, but using it to smear others with no consequences isn’t one of them.

    I tried to be civil to these folks, and both of them smeared me. So I’m just not too concerned about any complaints they might have. – Anthony

  26. Why not call it what it is Weaslepedia.Its rubbish what use is an online reference that destroys its own credibility.The stoat lies cheats and slimes, wikipedia allows this behaviour, wikipedia is done.

  27. Climatology has become a booming red-light district in the scientific metropolis. You walk by its main street and all you hear are invitations like: “Come on, fellow, to my bordello.”

  28. Perhaps relevant:

    http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/books/2012/09/an-open-letter-to-wikipedia.html

    “I am Philip Roth. I had reason recently to read for the first time the Wikipedia entry discussing my novel “The Human Stain.” The entry contains a serious misstatement that I would like to ask to have removed. This item entered Wikipedia not from the world of truthfulness but from the babble of literary gossip—there is no truth in it at all.

    Yet when, through an official interlocutor, I recently petitioned Wikipedia to delete this misstatement, along with two others, my interlocutor was told by the “English Wikipedia Administrator”—in a letter dated August 25th and addressed to my interlocutor—that I, Roth, was not a credible source: “I understand your point that the author is the greatest authority on their own work,” writes the Wikipedia Administrator—“but we require secondary sources.””

  29. ” Stephen Rasey says:
    October 11, 2012 at 9:46 am

    The deleted Wikipedia page about Leroux continues existence at Lucy Skywalker’s page here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Lucy_Skywalker/Marcel_Leroux.

    Lucy Skywalker, may the Force by with you!
    “Try not. Do or do not!! There is no try.” – Yoda.
    Lucy, you DID.”

    Yoda’s line always bugged me. Until you either “do” (succeed) or “do not” (fail), one IS trying. Until there’s a result one way or the other, there’s ONLY”trying.”

    Figures that Lucas would consider that to be a great philosophical thought.

  30. “I have to wonder if Connolly and friends would also burn books and erase all science or history they disagree with if they had the chance.”

    It looks a lot like Connoley’s wettest dream.

  31. markx has drawn attention to the Fnench version at http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux.
    This differs from the version that Lucy Skywater retained in that it is fuller. The discussion on the French version shows that those who are afraid for their propaganda tried to get it removed but it is still there.
    The English translatio, for once, is pretty accurate.

  32. So the Ministry of Truth (Wiki) has declared him to be a ‘non-person’? and is removing all references to his existence? Sure sounds like it.

  33. Missing word?

    “We do [not] have to resort to complicated models to tell us that an increase in CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature, a simple of rule of thumb, a ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculation, will suffice.”

  34. artwest says:
    October 11, 2012 at 10:22 am
    “Doesn’t the . . .

    Back to the top please. Notice Anthony’s link to the Streisand effect at the end of the first paragraph.

  35. JamesS says:
    October 11, 2012 at 11:48 am
    “Yoda’s line always bugged me. Until you either “do” (succeed) or “do not” (fail), one IS trying. Until there’s a result one way or the other, there’s ONLY”trying.”

    You miss the point. It’s not about the action. Yoda was speaking to Luke’s attitude. Essentially this is what Yoda is saying: “Don’t think you could fail, think you will succeed, or don’t bother”

    Hope that clears things up for you

  36. I read this book a few years ago and have mentioned it and Leroux a couple of times on this site only to have a few people dismiss his work, seems like the campaign to discredit his work has a lasting power. ( I still think there is a good chance his opinion on El Nino/ La Nina is correct and it is a co-varience.) :0)

  37. It would surely be effective if thousands of WUWT denizens e:mailed Jimmy Wales to tell him directly about what we think about WC and his partisan efforts to destroy Wikipedia climate pages. Does anyone have an e:mail?

  38. I used to do little tidy-up edits for Wikipedia. Nothing special, just good-citizen stuff. When Connolloy was suspended from Wikipedia gate keeping on CAGW matters, I edited his personal Wikipedia page to state that fact, referring to the Wikipedia statement.
    Someone blocked that on the grounds that I was not referring to a published document.
    I have not contributed to Wikipedia since.

  39. John F. Hultquist, I did see the Steisand effect link and know what it means but it’s a subtly different point. Wikipedia has “notability” as one of its main criteria for inclusion. The Streisand effect is simply about someone’s actions drawing more attention to a subject they want hidden, my point was that Leroux’s being the subject of a Wikipedia deletion controversy makes him more notable in Wikipedia terms, not merely that more attention is drawn to him in general. A fine distinction, I know.

  40. October 11, 2012 at 1:09 pm | mondo says:

    It would surely be effective if thousands of WUWT denizens e:mailed Jimmy Wales to tell him directly about what we think about WC and his partisan efforts to destroy Wikipedia climate pages. Does anyone have an e:mail?
    =============================

    October 11, 2012 at 12:25 pm | DirkH says:

    Dear Leader Jimbo Wales’ e-mail.
    jwales@wikia.com

  41. Sadly, like Greenpeace, the original ideals have been diluted by the mediocre.
    Big ideas can’t be encompassed by small minded people

  42. Cam_S says October 11, 2012 at 12:39 pm

    The French version is still available. Have not tried Google or some other translator yet, so I don’t know if the content is the same. But just just a quick perusal, and my high school French tells me it’s the same.

    Marcel Leroux

    http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcel_Leroux

    Yes, and well, some have made use of (built-in Google Chrome) translator and there is __more__ content on the French language page, notably the list of books and articles he has authored as well the fact he is described a professor emeritus (which does _not_ appear on the page ‘the Stoat’ keeps ‘sanitized’ for the English-speaking balance of the world).

    .

  43. A price set at $175 a copy is the publisher’s way of telling you this is an important niche book. They feel that important books simply will never sell less than say 1,000 copies as universities and reference libraries will demand one no matter how high a price they have to pay to get it. While due to its limited interest subject matter there is an upper limit on the maximum number of books they can sell no matter cheaply they price it. So 1,000 books at $175 brings in more than 4,000 at $20.

  44. Van Grungy has got the point.

    Difficult actions are more likely to succeed if done without doubt and in full confidence. This is critical for high performance athletes, for example, who are trained to fantasize successful performance just prior to their true performance. “Try” contains the possibility of failure and must be put out of mind.

    A related Zen-like concept is of the Samurai who, on entering battle, embraced and accepted death—-this allowed them to be more fearless and fluid in action, increasing ironically their chance of victory and life. This was popularized by the Klingons, of Star Trek fame, as in “this is a good day to die”.

  45. Twiggy says October 11, 2012 at 1:00 pm

    I read this book a few years ago and have mentioned it and Leroux a couple of times on this site only to have a few people dismiss his work, seems like the campaign to discredit his work has a lasting power. …

    Who was that doing the dismissing? Gates or Shore? I don’t recall seeing the references to Leroux but then I don’t scour every thread for cites either. Were the thread a little meteorological (vs climate et el centric) in nature then I pay attention …

    .

  46. @JamesS: Oct 11 at 11:48 am
    Yoda’s line always bugged me. Until you either “do” (succeed) or “do not” (fail), one IS trying. Until there’s a result one way or the other, there’s ONLY”trying.”

    Yoda: “That is why you fail.” . . (Sorry, couldn’t resist.)

    Yoda’s “Do or Do Not” is in a similar vein to a quote from United Airline Sr. Training Pilot Dennis E. Fitch
    Your attitude determines your altitude. He said this in regard to the situation he and to two pilots experienced trying to land the crippled United Airlines 232 DC-10 at Sioux City, Iowa. He said in an interview later, you had to believe you would succeed or there was no hope. The cockpit voice recorder of that flight is one for the Smithsonian Air and Space Museum.

  47. There is an increasing problem that climatologists, with their hoards of hangers-on cannot bear to have any contrary opinions. They cannot acknowledge that any alternative point is valid, or that genuine doubt of their beliefs is possible. Therefore the huge efforts to delete comments, have the final say, name-calling, and deliberate misrepresentation of views. William Connolly’s editing is in the same vain as taking down blogs (Jo Nova’s site was down earlier, my own blog had an attempted hijack attempt yesterday) and the main-stream media’s (especially state-funded) near blanket ban on contrary opinions.

  48. Thank you for the sensitive article!
    It is good to highlight why these climate-zealots “burn” books and memories of scientists who were not bought in a way or another by the cult.
    Marcel Leroux had clearly seen their lack of scientific qualification: tabloid climatology. A fine man who saw through the smoke and mirrors of “CAGW-modelling-science”.
    Of course the zealots hate him for pointing it out.
    However it is another level of perfidy what they do here, deleting his page – to improve their statistics of scientists who support their failed theory. Dissapear the opponents.
    It was a year full of learnings: we saw an ethics-responsible pull a gleick, we saw professor lew pulling statistics out of his nose, gergis-papers dissapearing and now learned a new type of editing: wmc-editing. Yup, the year Greenland melted.
    All these thanks to the tabloid climatology with “extreme weather boogeyman” zealots.

  49. History will record you were a small minded man William Connolley who embarked on a fools errand. Rest in peace.

  50. Leroux: W.M.C., hand, cooky jar… world wide coverage. Hope friends of Kramm gets their act together now!

  51. From Wikipedia:
    ____________________________

    “William M. Connolley topic-banned

    5.6) William M. Connolley is topic-banned from Climate change, per Remedy 3.

    5.6) William M. Connolley is permitted to edit within the topic area of Climate change, but is prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. William M. Connolley is reminded to abide by all applicable Wikipedia policies in editing on this topic and that he remains subject either to further action by this Committee or (like all editors in this topic-area) to discretionary sanctions should he fail to do so.

    Passed 7 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
    Amended by motion, 8 to 2, 21:20, 26 October 2011 (UTC) ”
    ____________________________

    He can only go after deceased CAGW skeptics. It might be interesting to see if he has deleted any other deceased CAGW skeptics. He really should be ashamed of himself but I’m sure that he isn’t.

  52. It is quite amazing how many of these Wiki-warriors are low level programmers and mathematicians with links to each other…

  53. I love what’s happening here today.

    Connolley cannot actually press any Little Red Button for article or picture deletion. But the system still allows him to sue for it, of course.

    Connolley is still banned here. See my comment earlier, followed by Anthony’s comment.

    The French wiki Leroux bio is indeed still in existence, although one can no longer see the picture that maybe shows Leroux being presented with the Ordre des Palmes Académiques – because said picture was deleted by IRWolfie AFAICT – see here – Wolfie presumed it was superfluous to the now-deleted article, evidently without checking the French version.

    Firefox refused to translate Wikipédia – but Google Chrome offers translation automatically.

    This is Lysenkoesque book-burning – yet made to look like good practice by touting (in reality flouting) something called the claim to “notability”. In reality, Leroux was at the top of his profession and was awarded some kind of knighthood. The “deleters” played all this down – and of course made no mention of Leroux’ classic textbook. In reality, Leroux’ textbook stands in a class of its own.

    Is there any other top textbook by any other top climatologist, that states the corruption in Climate Science so unequivocally and clearly?

    I don’t think so. Carter, Plimer, and Singer don’t qualify, Richard Llindzen’s book is a straight textbook, John Christy has not published a book, neither did Jaworowski or Moerner or John Daly, and Roy Spencer’s books have only a fraction of the punch and textbook wealth of climate science that Leroux’ book shows. No wonder the meanies were so keen to erase Leroux’ name from Wikipedia.

    This classic textbook ought to go to every climatology student and every sociology faculty – with individual copies sent to a number of prominent individuals. I was unfortunately not able to locate WMC’s sale offer. Prices seem inflated, perhaps due to limited number of copies now.

    It definitely ought to be reprinted. And touted. Anthony, can you put it in the sidebar?

  54. Didn’t know so many here were such a fan of Yoda’s philosophy. I think I got more responses from that one than from anything else I’ve ever posted.

    Still, whether one is landing a crippled DC-10 on engine controls alone or trying (sorry, “doing”) a lift of an X-Wing out of a swamp, until one actually succeeds or fails, one is only trying. One might believe with all their heart that they will succeed, but they’re still only “trying” until the result is in.

    If Luke had gotten the ship out of the muck only high enough to drop it on Yoda, he would have shrugged and muttered, “Well, I tried,” as he sneaked off, looking for the keys to get out of there.

  55. Wikipedia isn’t really like an encyclopedia. It also isn’t really like a newspaper, despite changing all the time. It isn’t even really like a newspaper’s editorial pages.

    It’s more like the editorial pages of that free local newspaper that makes most of its money from six pages of personal ads which are mostly from escort services, and record store ads, and is edited by that one guy who calls himself an “independent amateur pharmacologist” and claims to only sleep two hours a day because he has too much to do, which somehow always results in the 30-page free newspaper always being late and 275 pages long.

    On the other hand, where else are you going to learn that the Freemasons put mind-control drugs in your prescriptions at “big corporate pharmacies?”

  56. Just noticed that maybe the reason that the Books Online version is free is that it may be in German.

  57. “Leroux is an empirical climatologist and thus a real climatology who is a professor at a university in Francel climatology”

    Doesn’t anyone proofread any more?

  58. “We do have to resort to complicated models to tell us that an increase in CO2 brings about, theoretically, an increase in temperature, a simple of rule of thumb, a ‘back-of-the-envelope’ calculation, will suffice.”

    Unfortunately this very nice, honest scientist does not know to consult with those who understand thermodynamics and the fact that no gas can detectably warm the climate, particularly with such small increases in CO2, the fact that it has been much higher than now, even in the recent past (the 1940s), and the huge negative feedback mechanism of water vapor and the water cycle.

    Very simply, there is not enough heat in the upper troposphere nor is it hot enough to warm the Earth’s surface as claimed. A cold body cannot warm a hot body—the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics.

  59. Jeff Alberts says:

    October 11, 2012 at 7:12 pm

    “Leroux is an empirical climatologist and thus a real climatology who is a professor at a university in Francel climatology”

    Doesn’t anyone proofread any more?
    ==================
    It’s probably a translation thing, but yes, it does break the flow.

  60. Lucy Skywalker
    I took a look at your Wiki sandbox. I wonder about this sentence: Cooling spurns an accelerated circulation while warming will slow the general circulation and exchanges. Should that perhaps read Cooling spawns?

  61. WP are now trying to delete my Sandbox Leroux page. IRWolfie is wolfhounding me, it seems. I don’t think I’ve truly merited a request for deletion this soon. In many ways I am unfamiliar with WP and I can hardly keep up. It feels like speed is of the essence in wikibullying. But I think we are getting seeds for another article. What comes to mind is the lines from Shakespeare’s Macbeth:

    Enter LADY MACBETH, with a taper.

    Lo you! here she comes. This is her very guise; and, upon my life, fast asleep. Observe her; stand close.
    Doct. How came she by that light?
    Gen. Why, it stood by her: she has light by her continually; ’tis her command.
    Doct. You see, her eyes are open.
    Gen. Ay, but their sense is shut.
    Doct. What is it she does now? Look, how she rubs her hands.
    Gen. It is an accustomed action with her, to seem thus washing her hands. I have known her to continue in this a quarter of an hour.
    Lady M. Yet here’s a spot.
    Doct. Hark! she speaks. I will set down what comes from her, to satisfy my remembrance the more strongly.
    Lady M. Out, damned spot! out, I say! One; two: why, then, ’tis time to do ’t. Hell is murky! Fie, my lord, fie! a soldier, and afeard? What need we fear who knows it, when none can call our power to account? Yet who would have thought the old man to have had so much blood in him?

    Here is what’s been happening:

    (1) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Leroux_2002_Palmes.jpg is not just deleted now, its link has been removed from the French Wikipédia by US Wikipedian Tarc. With the title of this jpg, it sounds like good visual evidence of Leroux’ “notable” (™ Wikipedia) status. But I was intrigued, who was this non-French wandering in to Wikipédia, who last night also posted on my own Leroux talk page?

    (2) Here is Tarc’s own Wiki User page. As you can see, he presents himself as a pit bull, proudly displays the infamous Red Button, and seems to be a master deletionist. Here is what others think of him at WP. So, WP have been calling in the heavies, to cover the tracks, heh?

    (3) Charles Bruce Richardson Jr. says: From Wikipedia: [WMC is] prohibited from editing relating to any living person associated with this topic, interpreted broadly but reasonably. He can only go after deceased CAGW skeptics…

    (4) Here is a Spanish report on happenings. Leroux’ bio is also intact in the Spanish wiki. This is the only place I could find a picture of Leroux at all (without heavy googling). It’s interesting to see Connolley named as Savonarola there. Cap fits quite closely I think.

    Enough for now. I will save my WP sandbox pages as textfiles in case of deletion. The comments there are of course highly revealing, and IMHO still constitute strong reasons why climate skeptics still need their own wiki – which I have started though it still needs templates to enable better porting of WP articles especially biographies – any help gratefully received!

  62. Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:Lucy Skywalker/Marcel Leroux has been created by IRWolfie on the grounds that

    The talk page of this article is serving as a place to attack an editor. The article itself was deleted and it was put here prior to deletion so it’s saved from “wrong deletion”. The existence of this sandbox (or article as it’s being called by canvassers [1]) is merely to avoid deletion. It is not a userfied copy (it also violates the CC by SA). IRWolfie- (talk) 00:57, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

    I should say, like every discussion that has involved Leroux, I expect canvassing to occur, so can the closer please take that into account. IRWolfie- (talk) 09:51, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

    That’s rich. Connolley comes right over to my sandbox Leroux page as soon as he hears it’s been praised by two other WP contributors, and wades right in with deletions of their ongoing work on the grounds that I claimed the artilce was a copy of the article as it stood at the time of deletion.

    My sandbox, yet Connolley wades right in with his agenda without checking with me first. In my world, this is unwarranted, intrusive behaviour. He continues with misrepresentations that distinctly feel like bullying because it takes time to answer, so I say this. Then if I understand correctly, because the Talk page has swung somewhat from the actual contents of the article to my simple but rather direct late-night provoked statement of the deeper issues and in particular those of Connolley and Wikipedia, the article itself is proposed for deletion.

    WTF?

    I’ve amended my late-night outburst, said this should be enough to warrant removal of the AfD label, since the Talk page should not impinge on the article itself! I asked if this is not enough to please tell me what would be. How can I guess what will jump out next? Oh, perhaps it will be the issue Wolfie mentions of “canvassing” – my guess is that he calls my reports back here “canvassing” but I’ve asked him to explain.

    All I want is the return of integrity to Climate Science. But I don’t think that Wikipedia, with its No Original Research (NOR) rule, is able to do much more than follow the current corrupt science, therefore is bound to end up with types like Connolley who have to see Leroux as non-notable.

  63. Here’s WMC’s fast reply to my post above, posted on my WP User Talk page since of course he cannot post here. For the first time it’s useful and neutral, so I could thank him. Seems only fair to report that here. Well, if this is a step in healing the corruption of Climate Science, via steps in restoration of reasonable communication between skeptics like me and defenders of “consensus” like WMC, I think that’s a step forward.

    In many ways I am unfamiliar with WP

    “In many ways I am unfamiliar with WP” [my words at WUWT] [6]. Indeed, in this you are entirely correct. I’d answer you there, but of course the obvious problem prevents that. You want to find someone here to ask for advice on how the place works. Not me, obviously, or indeed any of the people in the current debate. You might wish to try Wikipedia:Adopt-a-user instead William M. Connolley (talk) 11:22, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

    I will save my WP sandbox pages as textfiles in case of deletion – you may also find http://www.webcitation.org/ useful. Its what I use for all those blog postings that you can’t trust the blog owner not to shift underneath you William M. Connolley (talk) 11:26, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

    Much appreciated, thank you. But before taking these up, I need to get my breath back! Hopefully I will now have a chance to breathe. Lucy Skywalker (talk) 11:34, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

  64. 1984 – or the old Soviet Union – Apparently, Alarmists are now trying to disappear people as well as inconvenient facts.

  65. higley7 says:
    October 11, 2012 at 7:31 pm

    Unfortunately this very nice, honest scientist does not know to consult with those who understand thermodynamics and the fact that no gas can detectably warm the climate,

    Bzzzzt!

    It’s a rate of radiative heat-loss kind-of-thing; full understanding takes some knowledge of Infrared Spectroscopy (for starters)

    “Thermodynamics’ alone does not ‘set the table’ – provide the full answer given the longwave IR EM (Electro Magnetic) wave characteristics of WV and CO2 molecules.

    And YES, a ‘gas’ can detectably change the temperature (and hence climate, in the long, long run) … any meteorologist worth his (or her) salt can describe to you the effects a moist (WV-filled) air mass has over one on a clear night versus a dry (sans WV) airmass particularly overnight …

    So, ask one!

    .

  66. Problem is : University Jean Moulin (Lyon-III) is not known to be a scientific research institution in hard sciences (let alone harbouring a Climatology Lab.). It is mostly dedicated to Law and Liberal Arts. It also has quite a reputation (deserved or not, I have not studied that aspect) for being a very right wing place where all sorts of denialists (the Holocaust-denying sort) take refuge. Mr. Leroux apparently died years ago, so it is difficult to argue with him about his findings -if any-; he was not well known anyway.

  67. So Connolley, no longer allowed to dispose of the living, has turned necrophagous and is now rummaging through the graveyard in search of his meals. What a repulsive low-life character. A true inquisitorial maggot.

  68. “Leroux is an empirical climatologist and thus a real climatology who is a professor at a university in Francel climatology”

    Doesn’t anyone proofread any more?

    Looks like a direct translation from the French page. Not a big deal I think.

  69. I read Leroux’s magnum opus 3 or 4 years ago (It cost approx. $110) and was worth every penny. From the book, ” Whatever modellers, with all their skills, might say, it is not the model which is right, but reality, the only possible reference.” Also, Leroux ascribed only the smallest of roles for chaos. The book remains within arm’s length of my desk-tp at all times.

  70. The Google translation of the French version is fairly accurate and shows that there are several substantial differences between the French version and the original English version that Lucy Skywater has retained. The following are extracts from the Google translation of the French version

    “Accordingly, its results oppose the idea of a global average temperature curve as an indicator major climate reliable (in this he is joined by Roger Pielke Sr. , Judith Curry and Vincent Courtillot among others) and are disagree with the assumption that the weather changes observed in the second half of the XX th century were the result of global warming by anthropogenic release of greenhouse gases due to human and industrial activities” .Since the paragraph is reasonably clear I have not attempted to correct the English.

    The original English version did not mention Pielke, Curry or Courtillot. More importantly the English version was a very weak summary of Leroux’s strong belief that the while CO2 can, in theory, lead to increases in temperature its influence on climate is purely hypothetical and, as yet, unproven.

    “About the causes of climate change, he writes in a section called Conclusion: the greenhouse is not the cause of climate change : “The probable causes of climate change are: well-established orbital parameters on the palaeoclimatic scale with climatic consequences hampered by the inertia effect of ice accumulations; solar activity that some believe to be responsible for half of the increase of 0.6 ° C temperature and any other this increase, which calls for debate certainly an additional analysis, the volcanic activity and aerosols associated (especially sulfates ), the effects (short-term) are compelling, and far later, the greenhouse effect, and in particular that caused by water vapor, whose influence is unknown. These factors combine continuously and it is difficult to establish the relative importance of these different factors on Climate Change. Similarly, it is tendentious to highlight the anthropic factor when it is, clearly, the least credible among all the other factors mentioned above. ” (Leroux, 2005, p. 120).

    Elsewhere, Marcel Leroux (2003) summarizes his view on the theory of global warming: “Global warming is a hypothesis [coming from] theoretical models based on simplistic relationships, [which announc[es] a rise in temperature, [forecast] but unproven. There are many contradictions between the predictions and [the] directly observed facts of the climate, the willful ignorance [and flagrant distortions] of these contradictions constitute a scientific fraud. Admittedly, the 1970s represent a fundamental turning [point in the] climate ([which] the models [did] not [forecast]) resulting in a gradual increase in violence and irregularity of [weather], associated with a change in the mode of circulation (fast[er] mode.”

    I have corrected the second paragraph of this extract in order to make Leroux’s point as it was made in the original French.

    The last paragraph of the French version states that while the concept of mobile polar anticyclones is sometimes referred to in certain works and manuals, the work of Mr. Leroux finds little favour in climatologists. Hence Donal Rapp* considers that Marcel Leroux’s book “Global Warming” is important but its objecivity is uncertain.
    * whoever he may be
    I read the French version being even stronger than the original English version.

  71. Regarding “Leroux might have noted that the IPCC managed to leave out all negative feedback effects while included the positive feedback ones”:

    This is not quite true. I have seen in an IPCC report mention of the lapse rate feedback, noted as a negative one.

    I tried a Google search as such:
    “cloud albedo” “surface albedo” “lapse rate” “water vapor” site:ipcc.ch. That should find this, except at this moment data transfer rate from hits to me PC is too slow for me to find a cite just yet. Maybe someone where connectivity is better, or at a better time for connectivity to ipcc.ch, can find this. I will try later.

  72. Lucy Skywalker says:
    October 12, 2012 at 1:24 pm

    Lol this is some funny stuff up in here

    Mods, I didn’t post the above. Could you please delete or otherwise tag it and its source please as “not me”

    [Working on it. Mod. ]

  73. Thanks Mod.

    Like Anthony I too got interested to check the real reason WMC wanted Leroux WP bio deleted. I have now collected ample evidence that Leroux was not just honest and forthright, he was a damn good climatologist who had earned his decoration with his discovery of the Mobile Polar High, an honour that, if not fully equivalent to our knighthood, doesn’t seem to be that far below. I’ve ordered his book Global Warming – Myth or Reality? despite the cost.

    Jon Salmi [backed by TomRude] says: I read Leroux’s magnum opus 3 or 4 years ago (It cost approx. $110) and was worth every penny… The book remains within arm’s length of my desk-tp at all times.

    so I’m doubly glad I ordered my copy – but is that Leroux’ magnum opus, or is it Dynamic Analysis of Weather and Climate?

    But there’s more. Leroux made a trenchant remark that made me think… yet another reason why WP is so misled and why it’s so hopeless a case trying to rectify. Leroux noted how, after Hansen set to work, the numbers of “climatologists” rose astronomically.

    All the post-Hansen-scaremongering “climatologist” appointees would have to agree with the alarmist dictum, de facto.

    Therefore the Google indexes for academic notability are going to work even less well in climate science than they do elsewhere. And WP admins certainly won’t notice this, if they cannot see transparently that Leroux has no right being deleted. Easier for WMC to pick off lone outliers, one by one, especially when they are, as he calls Leroux, “stiffs”. After 1990 or whenever, all the properly-trained independent-minded truly scientific old school, Moerner, Reiter, Segalstad, Jaworowski, Daly, Leroux, Tim Ball, etc etc are easier and easier for WMC and his WP colleagues like Tarc and IRWolfie to label lone nutters.

  74. Ace says:
    October 11, 2012 at 10:14 am

    Curious to know if indeed Connolly was banned from comment here? If so, what was the reason? I know that it typically takes an awful lot.

    Briefly, for all the right reasons on the surface, but his “friends” did his work for him during the hiatus, and then he was quietly restored as Editor.

  75. I’ve just voted to have my sandbox WP copy of Leroux’ bio deleted. What a to-do there has been at WP over all this. I’ve never had so many visitors to my page there. Gosh WMC got busy, tiring me out. He did, usefully, discover my Primer and picked up some small incorrect details about the IPCC MWP diagram – and in dealing with that, I was delighted of course to insert references to Steve McIntyre’s recent articles on Deming’s famous words about someone in IPCC who said “we have to get rid of the Medieval Warm Period”. More Streisand effect.

    I have kept records of the pages as of now, both textfiles and screenshots with clock – there is some very revealing material in them.

  76. So, we’ve gone from “Hide The Decline”, to “Hide The Deceased”!

    What’s next to be disappeared? There is always “Hide The Desperation”, but they don’t seem to be able to do that nearly as well as the other two.

  77. Lucy S.;
    Absent any obvious way to get in touch with you, an OT heads-up:

    There is an article which may be relevant to your adiabatic investigations in New Scientist:

    http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21628861.700-the-surprise-theory-of-everything.html?full=true

    Requires registration, etc., etc., so here’s the crucial stuff:

    Home |Physics & Math | In-Depth Articles

    The surprise theory of everything

    15 October 2012 by Vlatko Vedral
    Magazine issue 2886.

    Falling into disorder

    While thermodynamics seems to float above the precise content of the physical world it describes, whether classical, quantum or post-quantum (see main story), its connection with the other pillar of modern physics, general relativity, might be more direct. General relativity describes the force of gravity. In 1995, Ted Jacobson of the University of Maryland in College Park claimed that gravity could be a consequence of disorder as quantified by entropy.

    His mathematical argument is surprisingly simple, but rests on two disputed theoretical relationships. The first was argued by Jacob Bekenstein in the early 1970s, who was examining the fate of the information in a body gulped by a black hole. This is a naked challenge to the universal validity of thermodynamics: any increase in disorder in the cosmos could be reversed by throwing the affected system into a black hole.

    Bekenstein showed that this would be countered if the black hole simply grew in area in proportion to the entropy of the body it was swallowing. Then each tiny part of its surface would correspond to one bit of information that still counts in the universe’s ledger. This relationship has since been elevated to the status of a principle, the holographic principle, that is supported by a host of other theoretical ideas – but not as yet by any experiment.

    The second relationship is a suggestion by Paul Davies and William Unruh, also first made in the 1970s, that an accelerating body radiates tiny amounts of heat. A thermometer waved around in a perfect vacuum, where there are no moving atoms that can provide us with a normal conception of temperature, will record a non-zero temperature. This is an attractive yet counter-intuitive idea, but accelerations far beyond what can presently be achieved are required to generate enough radiation to test it experimentally.

    Put these two speculative relations together with standard, undisputed connections between entropy, temperature, kinetic energy and velocity, and it is possible to construct a quantity that mathematically looks like gravity, but is defined in terms of entropy. Others have since been tempted down the same route, most recently Erik Verlinde of the University of Amsterdam in the Netherlands.

    Such theories, which are by no means universally accepted, suggest that when bodies fall together it is not the effect of a separate fundamental force called gravity, but because the heating that results best fulfils the thermodynamic diktat that entropy in the universe must always increase.

    Vlatko Vedral is a professor of quantum information theory at the University of Oxford and the Centre for Quantum Technologies, Singapore. He is the author of Decoding Reality (Oxford University Press, 2010)
    Issue 2886 of New Scientist magazine

Comments are closed.