Pointman’s: The scorning of William Connolley

Dawg01

Pointman writes: I think we’ve all had that pleasant surprise when something totally unexpected just drops out of the sky and into your lap. That happened to me last weekend when a creature called William Connolley attempted to comment on a piece I’d written about the Bengtsson scandal. If you’re unfamiliar with him, he’s infamous for editing thousands of Wikipedia articles on climate and anyone significant in the area. You can find several articles on his activities over at WUWT.

His idea of truth is somewhat idiosyncratic to say the least, but let’s just say if you were any way sceptical, you weren’t going to get a glowing entry. When the skeptics tried to correct the foul calumnies for their entry, they were promptly changed back, a loop they went around until he banned them from being able to edit anything.

I’m actually quite knowledgeable about him, since I’ve been a fawning admirer and stroker of his ego for as far back as his days co-founding the joke site called Real Climate with Gavin Schmidt and others of a similar ilk. Needless to say, it’s under one of my dark side Eco-Annie personas. The site is pretty much moribund these days but it did get a sniffy mention in the climategate emails by Phil “hide the decline” Jones, as being there just to disseminate propaganda.

He was never particularly significant in the self-declared pantheon of climate demigods, more like their technical gopher despatched as required to cobble together various bits of HTML for them. In his Wikipedia heyday, he built up a small but dedicated following of fanboys but since Wiki banned him and nobody sane reads his blogging attempts, he’s of late been at a loose end, cruising around the skeptic blogosphere, trolling for all he’s worth and generally leaving a terrible stench behind him.

As it happens, I’ve a personal score to settle with him, and one I never thought I’d get the chance to do but this looked to be a heaven-sent opportunity, if I could just play it right. Picking an appropriate way would undoubtedly come down to making use on his own rather inflated idea of his importance in the general scheme of things climatic, but in just the right way. He’s used to swimming around in a little pond of mutual fishy admirers and as far as I’m aware has never had a good kicking, so I laced up my steel-toed boots and thought about an appropriate bait to fix on the hook.

Read the rest of this entertaining post here: http://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/29/the-scorning-of-william-connolley/

About these ads
This entry was posted in Opinion, Wiki Wars. Bookmark the permalink.

146 Responses to Pointman’s: The scorning of William Connolley

  1. philjourdan says:

    WC has been trolling all the blogs lately trying to get readership for his own sorry excuse for a blog. He posts links to it constantly. And of course has learned nothing from either the Wiki episode or now the Pointman one. His biggest problem is that no one is reading his blog, just laughing at him.

  2. ossqss says:

    Kudos to Pointman! It was a tough job that was done successfully ! :-)

  3. Latitude says:

    good grief, is he still around?…..I mean WC

  4. ConfusedPhoton says:

    I am not sure baiting a nonentity like Connolley is worth it. He is a frustrated little man. He has maths quailifications but became a low level coder instead. I presume he found being a mathematician too difficult. He has become a minor irritation in the climate debate but no one is interested in listening to him. I believe he has aspirations to be a Green MP, best place for him (even less people will listen to him them).

    I am sure he will continue with his puerile outbursts – but no one cares!

  5. Steve Keohane says:

    Well done. While this is a satisfying result, WC has ruined the potential for integrity that Wiki might have had as a open-sourced resource.

  6. A stoat is a weasel. Apt.

  7. michael hart says:

    I think I may have traced the source of the problem.
    In climategate email #4349 the Real Climate “rapid-response” team lists:

    on behalf of the RealClimate.org team:
    – Gavin Schmidt
    – Mike Mann
    – Eric Steig
    – William Connolley
    – Stefan Rahmstorf
    – Ray Bradley
    – Amy Clement
    – Rasmus Benestad
    – William Connolley
    – Caspar Ammann

    As you can see, William Connolley’s name crops up twice. Perhaps this is what gave him the determination to make sure he always gets his retaliation in early.

  8. M Simon says:

    I’m on Pointman’s list. I read it yesterday. Very amusing.

  9. Dunham says:

    God forbid I ever cross Pointman. The line, “If a sequitur ever managed to take up residence in that vast cavernous vacuum between his ears, it’d die of loneliness.” is one of the funniest I have ever read. Artful.

  10. IskurBlast says:

    It seems to me that Connolley is bitter about his present situation relative to his peers. He is one of the original members of “The Team” yet he has nothing to show for it. Millions of people read his propaganda on Wiki while no one reads realclimate or SKS yet the other members of realclimate appear on major TV networks. I’m sure that the personal and financial success Mr. Cook has had eats away at poor William. Cook goes from being an unemployed loser a researcher at a major university and the author of a paper that President Obama cited. Connolley has fallen behind and he knows it. Now he is screaming for people to pay attention to him. He wants the fame that he thinks he deserves.

  11. NikFromNYC says:

    Bravo. Pointman’s blog should be on the blogroll here as a pointer to sophisticated historical insight into climate cultism, and tips on strategic thinking that individualist temperament skeptics desperately need more insight into to get them out of the choir and out onto news sites where commenting is free as can be and sorely lacking in fact checking voices.

    Connolley even outright denied he was the subject of an exposure article about his Wikipedia corruption, even defending his claim using word games about the incorrectness of the headline text used that meant it obviously wasn’t referring to the same William Connolley:

    http://notrickszone.com/2014/05/16/leaked-memo-on-climatology-exposes-growing-worry-within-german-meteorological-society-unacceptable-unethical-developments/#comment-942428

  12. Alex E says:

    Well done. While this is a satisfying result, WC has ruined the potential for integrity that Wiki might have had as a open-sourced resource.

    no, it exposed it. Wiki’s format means that anything controversial will eventually be decided by a popularity contest.

  13. The Ghost Of Big Jim Cooley says:

    A very enjoyable read. Can’t stand Wiki, myself – because of odious toads like WC.

  14. BarryW says:

    @Alex E

    It’s worse than that. All it takes is someone who is a fanatical gatekeeper like WC who refuses to give up when someone inserts something they don’t like. They eventually wear down anyone who disagrees with them.

  15. artwest says:

    Alex E says: Wiki’s format means that anything controversial will eventually be decided by a popularity contest.
    ———————————————————-

    Agreed. If you have to use it I would always advise looking at the talk pages. It’s often surprising how controversial to a few people an apparently bland subject can be and how much bitter in-fighting is going on under the surface.

  16. mpaul says:

    @Alex E
    I think Wikipedia’s format ensures that the editor with the highest degree of obsessive compulsive disorder prevails.

  17. dbstealey says:

    Wikipedia could have been a very valuable resource for the world. But because of William Connolley in particular, it is nothing but a propaganda blog. It has no credibility outside of its small head-nodding clique of catastrophic AGW True Believers.

    That’s a shame. Wikipedia could have been a contender.

  18. pokerguy says:

    Guess I’m missing something. I confess I only made it about 3/4 of the way through. I just kept having the thought, “is this really worth the effort?” Never been a fan of the sneer and jeer, though I admit to indulging myself from time to time.

  19. John Whitman says:

    The Pointman showed us that the WC needed cleaning.

    Then Pointman decided it was un-cleanable so he quarantined the WC.

    Good decision Pointman.

    John

  20. > is this really worth the effort?

    Well, its about me, so obviously yes. Though otherwise I find it hard to see the point. If you want to see the other side of the conversation, its at (not worth checking, especially since it’s a very cheap trick to drive up visits.)”

  21. Harold says:

    lolol

  22. G. Karst says:

    Pointman, you have crossed over to the dark side. Quickly! Come back to the light. Follow my voice and you will see it. Come back into warmth and light. GK

  23. John Whitman says:

    WC accepts soliloquist MM’s “..a debate where none should exist”. So let WC lapse into solipsism’s lonely realm of recursive debatelessness.

    John

  24. meltemian says:

    Pointman’s writing is always enjoyable, this was fun but not one of his classics.
    He has a brilliant turn of phrase.

  25. Pointman says:

    Willy! You’ve broken cover at last. I was beginning to think I’d scarred you for life. Come on over to my gaff. I’ll let you in if you pass a few little tests. Just for you, I’ll make them really simple. You won’t even have to look the answers up in Wikipedia; they won’t be there anyway and if they are, they’ll probably be wrong anyway.

    You know you want to do it and I’ll only pose you suitably simple questions. Gowon, let’s do the rematch. The whole blogosphere is watching. Your chance for another 15 minutes …

    Pointman

  26. Somebody says:

    I too had a couple of ‘meetings’ with that guy, if I recall correctly. One was on the ‘chaos theory’ Wikipedia page, where I added that the difference between the system state and the measured values (that is, measurement error) is enough for obtaining the big difference (well, not with those exact words). He quickly removed the change, letting there only what it is today: the mention of the numerical errors only. His claim was that ‘it was confusing’. Of course, it is confusing for the ‘science’. They wouldn’t want people realize that measurement errors can lead to the wrong ‘prediction’.

    Another ‘pleasant’ meeting was on the Wikipedia temperature page. I removed the average temperature maps, claiming that they have no place on a page about physical temperature. The same old things, temperature being intensive, you’d better not add it to make an average, and besides, there is no such thing as a physical temperature for a system that is not in thermal equilibrium. Anyway, he quickly reverted the changes, as typical.

    I think that guy might be posting now on Facebook with some fake accounts…

  27. RH says:

    Too funny. What mental illness would cause that guy to keep coming back for more?

  28. > I removed the average temperature maps, claiming that they have no place on a page about physical temperature.

    This is the Essex stuff, isn’t it? No-one believes that. Just look at posts on this blog. Everyone is entirely happy to talk about average temperature.

    The edit you mean is https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Temperature&diff=next&oldid=361297510 I think. There was some discussion on the talk page (now archived: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Temperature/Archive_3#Mean_temperature) in which you (79.113.2.40) didn’t really contribute to.

  29. William Connolley will live on in history long after most of us are forgotten. He will be used as an example of mindless propaganda, stupidity, small minded mean spirit, and arrogance. Wikipedia was a grand experiment and had my full support for years, but Connolley singlehandedly showed me that Wikipedia is useless. Years from now when this current political scam by the socialist has been abandoned a few men will be pointed to as outrageously criminal and Connolley will be in that lineup.

  30. more soylent green! says:

    Willy must surely have a lot of free time on his hands to go to the effort of begging to be allowed to post comments on that blog. Is he banned everywhere else? I’m pretty sure he’s allowed to post on WUWT, but his comments get so much scorn I don’t think his ego can handle it.

  31. Pointman says:

    William, my hero William, don’t let that beastly denialist Pointman get the best of you. This is like that bit in Top gun where Maverick re-engages after running away. Turn around in your carbon-neutral F-14 Tomcat and engage with him.

    Do it or lose me forever.

    Eco-Annie

  32. thegriss says:

    All I can say Pointman, is……. Thanks…. NOT !!

    He has now directed his putrid persona at the JoNova site.

    Perhaps you could come over and have a discussion with him ;-)

  33. > I’m pretty sure he’s allowed to post on WUWT

    Its a lottery (as I write, my comment #1 on this thread is published, but #2 is stuck in moderation. This is #3). After I dissed AW’s faulty memory of his wiki-adventures (http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/) I got banned (see-also AW’s http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/10/09/death-by-stoat/#comment-1106998). If you see this comment, then I guess that’s no longer true.

    > but his comments get so much scorn I don’t think his ego can handle it.

    Dahling; I wilt under the ravishing eloquence of your disdain. But come on Shaw-y.

  34. ATheoK says:

    “William Connolley says: May 30, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    > is this really worth the effort?

    Well, its about me, so obviously yes. Though otherwise I find it hard to see the point. If you want to see the other side of the conversation, its at (not worth checking, especially since it’s a very cheap trick to drive up visits.)

    I visited Pointman’s journal of wicked Willy’s trolling attempts; an incredibly uplifting read. As is Pointman’s wont, he lays out both sides of conversation well.

    I especially enjoyed where Pointman was ‘thinking out loud’ about ‘Ictor Enema'; do check it out!

  35. jones says:

    Hi Pointman,

    I understand why you went through all the effort but I’m really not sure it was worth the time and energy.

    Jones

  36. timg56 says:

    I would suggest that Mr Connolley go hang out with someone like Scooter Nuccitelli. Scooter might understand what it means to be a little attack puppy with no real qualification, that few take seriously and who regularly get punted across the room due to their nasty little ankle-biting antics.

  37. Green Sand says:

    Pointman:-

  38. Rud Istvan says:

    Having some experience at this elsewhere (Judith Curry’s more scientific site), let me offer an opinion. WC and his ilk have little to no standing, and little to no scientific credibility. Engaging them directly gives them what they desire yet have not. Best policy is silent shunning, like they practiced on Bengtsson.
    Never engage an idiot, lest you might be reduced to their level.
    Advice includes engaging President Obummer. Election coming. Use it like AUS did.

  39. KNR says:

    Sorry but WC and his sock puppets still have Wikipedia by the balls on some articles, he never went away just changed hats . Its a weakness of Wikipedia that its ‘in-crowd’ become untouchable [as] they look after each other .

  40. Canman says:

    Pointman is the Mickey Spillane of climate blogging. (Warning Will Robinson. Strong language ahead!)

    https://www.google.com/#q=mickey+spillane

  41. Canman says:

    Wrong Link!

  42. Bella says:

    Most of the time I would avoid these types of conversations due to the negativity but in this instance I applaud Pointman. Comments from some people such as Connolley – notice I do not use Mr. – give me a reaction similar to stepping in dog poop. Pure nastiness. Being banned from a blog and a bit of verbal sparring is the least of what he deserves. Connolley – you would do yourself a world of good to stfu and just read. You might learn a thing or two – If not about the topic then maybe general decency.

  43. KenB says:

    Ah I can see it now a Lewandowski blockbuster expose “The Psychological Warfare tactic of Pointman invading (eroding?) the mind of William Connelly” – watch this space – with cooky and nutso in the mix!!

  44. Bill Illis says:

    Its pretty clear that any research paper, comment on any website, Wikipedia edits/deletions or radio repair as is his current profession, by William Connolley has been screwed up and done completely wrong.

    Why anyone would let him try to post anything on anything is beyond me.

    If only the Wikipedia creators knew beforehand that William Connolley would take their brilliant idea and completely destroy it, the whole world would be a different place today. (Wiki had the potential to be the greatest benefit to mankind of almost any other invention as well as the potential to be worth billions of dollars to the original creators, but Connolley more-than-anyone- else turned it into untrustworthy joke). (I imagine that all of William Connolley’s former employers/colleagues have a similar feeling today).

  45. NikFromNYC says:

    [snip - over the top - Anthony]

  46. Steve from Rockwood says:

    WC proved beyond a shadow of a doubt how useless Wikipedia really is. A heart-felt thanks for that. I never click on a wiki anymore. I’d rather rewrite history myself.

    I’ve dropped into Pointman’s site a few times. He can write! Will make a greater effort.

  47. NikFromNYC says:

    I’ve finally been snipped, fairly.

  48. Sparks says:

    I enjoy Pointman’s strategic mind.

  49. Pointman says:

    @Eco-Annie

    Stay out of this you [shameless hussy]. It’s between man and stoat.

    Pointman

    [Language changed by request .mod]

  50. John Whitman says:

    LIsten, listen on this thread. Here it? That is not the sound of a great northern loon’s (Gavia immer) haunting call. It is William Connolley is trying to speak, but all his words all rhyme with synonyms of ‘unconvincible’.

    John

  51. Typhoon says:

    Lenin is said to have had a succinct term for the discardable gophers of a cause:

    “Useful idiots.”

  52. Pointman says:

    @Mod can you put in “shameless hussy” instead?

    Pointman

  53. george e. conant says:

    Well done Pointman. Well done. I got banned from Real Climate just for asking too many good questions , LOL

  54. John Whitman says:

    John Whitman says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    May 30, 2014 at 5:54 pm

    = = = = =

    Moderator,

    yup, one to many ‘is’ and one to many ‘all’, and a here where it should be an hear. OOPS.

    John

    [Ya want it "as is" or do you want to "re-typo" it so we here can hear where you all are is as it should be if it were was what it was when it wasn't here? 8<) .mod]

  55. Sparks says:

    @William Connolley

    Do you endorse the censorship of sceptically minded people on anthropogenic global warming? regardless of their wide spectrum politics, views and opinions, do you believe they should be subjected to media bias, name calling and lies? Should people just roll over and submit to bulling and unjust pressure?

    You are way out of your depth if you do… don’t you think?

    And don’t play the victim, you certainly are not, you have had free range of expression until you abused it. I hate bullies! even wannabe ones.

  56. ferdberple says:

    All it takes is someone who is a fanatical gatekeeper like WC who refuses to give up when someone inserts something they don’t like.
    =============
    you are mistaken. Bots (computer programs) patrol wiki and revert the pages automatically pretending to be humans, while at the same time notifying the human control of the change. In this way a very small team of people can control thousands of pages of content.

    there is no mistake in this. I’ve had WC roll back wiki changes in matters of seconds, as I jumped randomly from page to page editing. No human being can do this. It is completely impossible. It requires bots (programs) continually interrogating pages, hundreds if not thousands every minute to the limit of your bandwidth, looking for the slightest change.

    technically this is not difficult to do. all that is required is a mania to devote the time and energy to making it happen. creating some simple bots and leave them running on a bank of low cost PC’s.

    The Bots have a list of pages (URL’s) they are protecting. They scan them round robin looking for any change. If a change is found the bot first reverts the page using a standard list of excuses. Most people have already moved on and don’t detect the reversion. However, if the person attempting the change discovers the reversion, and tries to make the change a second time, the Bot passes the problem to the human control for more ingenious excuses to revert the URL.

    This process continues day and night, over thousands of pages. Ensuring the Wikipedia is nothing but propaganda.

  57. ferdberple says:

    Wasn’t WC invented by Thomas Crapper?

  58. ossqss says:

    Don’t become the bully you faced ……..

    Just sayin folks,,,,,,,,,

  59. evanmjones says:

    Over the last year-plus, I have had oddly reasonable exchanges with both Connolley and Victor Venema concerning the surfacestations paper. We explored their three main objections and have addressed them. That was actually quite valuable, as it turns out.

    I do understand that they are controversial figures, and many have crossed swords with them, but I have made out okay. They found out we are for real — which they needed to know. I found out what their criticisms are and where how they will be arguing against the paper, down the road — which I needed to know.

    REPLY: he seems to have a different persona when not in public view. In my case here and at his own blog, he wears his contempt on his sleeve – Anthony

  60. Sparks says:

    ossqss says:
    May 30, 2014 at 7:43 pm

    Don’t become the bully you faced …

    A very fair and honest point, and I agree!

  61. Sparks says:

    evanmjones says:
    May 30, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    Luke warmers ffs lol

  62. Aaron Luke says:

    William the weasel,

    the mass propaganda prince:

    misleading man and womankind for money.

    LoL.

    Wait till his wives, ex-wives, kids & grandkids get a load of what daddy was doin when all the books come out.

  63. dbstealey says:

    The execrable connolley says:

    … especially since it’s a very cheap trick to drive up visits.

    WUWT doesn’t need connolley.

    Of all the real trolls out there, connolley is the most odious. NikFromNYC’s link demonstrates that well. Well worth the read. So is this.

  64. Sparks says:

    evanmjones says:
    May 30, 2014 at 7:45 pm

    The planet earth is either warming due to a green house gas or it is not, there is no middle ground because the anthropogenic greenhouse, global warming, climate change, weather disruption theory has made it’s case… and it is horror most foul.

  65. > As is Pointman’s wont, he lays out both sides of conversation well

    P provides his side of the conversation only. By contrast, I provide both sides of the conversation. This is a matter of obvious fact; how can you get that so badly wrong?

    > he never went away just changed hats

    Wrong. I still edit under the same account.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley

    > notice I do not use Mr.

    Thanks. Its the wrong title: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:William_M._Connolley/For_me/The_naming_of_cats

    > Being banned from a blog

    Its no great deal being banned from P’s. But what do you make of someone who bans you, but then wants you back (“Come on over to my gaff…”)?

    > Why anyone would let him try to post anything on anything is beyond me

    Some people like to hear both sides of the argument. Not P, obviously.

    > If only the Wikipedia creators knew beforehand that William Connolley would take their brilliant idea and completely destroy it,

    I know I’m, like, immensely powerful and all that, but don’t you think you’re being too generous to me there? One man, destroy wiki?

    > Do you endorse the censorship of sceptically minded people on anthropogenic global warming?

    Nope. But you provide no examples, so this is a matter of general principles.

    > I hate bullies! even wannabe ones.

    That’s nice. What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation and then gloats about it?

  66. Mac the Knife says:

    ossqss says:
    May 30, 2014 at 7:43 pm
    Don’t become the bully you faced ……..
    Just sayin folks,,,,,,,,,

    ossqss,
    Facing a bully usually means you have to ‘put them on the pavement’ once or twice, in my experience. Some bullies are slow learners. Connelley seems to be a veryslow learner. He demonstrated a monomaniacal penchant for abuse of editorial power on Wikipedia and shows no indications of conscience or remorse for his abusive behavior that caused him to be banned from Wiki. He clearly has not learned the error of his ways yet.

    I have absolutely no problem with Pointman knocking him down as many times as it takes for the poor fool to learn humility. Think of it as a remedial educational program …… or evolution in action.
    Mac

  67. Richo says:

    Yes, William is pain in the butt. However, I don’t agree with what the Pointman has done, it is censorship. I don’t think that the skeptic community interests are well served by going down the slippery Stalinist slope of the warmist commissars. I think that ridicule is the best medicine for trolls. It doesn’t hurt to be exposed to alternate views provided that they are knowledgeable and not abusive because it combats group think which the warmist commissars indulge in on their sites.

  68. X Anonymous says:

    A few years ago, if you did a wiki search on El Nino, the page back then described there was still a great deal of uncertainty with regards to the various possible mechanism that cause the trade winds to weaken and El Nino to form. The page today still conveys that same message of uncertainty.

    One of the theories /mechanisms put forth on this ye ol’ El Nino page on wiki (perhaps it still exists somewhere lurking on the web..way back?) was a suggestion by climate skeptic Ian Plimer, that volcanoes, or more specifically, undersea volcanic/seismic shifts may be a significant cause of El Nino.

    These days, the reference is gone. And good riddance to that. The claim was and still is the biggest load of pseudo science ever conceived, in my view. In fact, using typical Plimer-type language, one might describe it as “the greatest fraud of the 20th century”.
    The lesson here folks is that just because “it’s skeptical” doesn’t make it a good argument.
    Odds are, it’s extremely likely that Connolley removed Plimer’s garbage, and for that William, I thankyou.

  69. LewSkannen says:

    Richo, there are plenty of contrary opinions welcome on Pointmans site, it is just whiney abusive trolls who are banned. No censorship problem at all.

    I clicked the link here to Stoats site…. just so he knows that the only reason he gets any traffic is because he occasionally gets mentioned on this site.

  70. NikFromNYC says:

    Deeper he digs!

    “What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation and then gloats about it?”

    We hate you for it corrupted Wikipedia William, all thirty thousand of us regular WUWT readers, or about twice that as of 2014 compared to 2013, and every one of the millions of Fox News viewers who are informed competently by skeptical arguments that we alert their guests about, despise you for it, by name, as you stand exposed as an enabler of potentially genocidal artificial energy rationing. You are one of the few people most privy to the damning information that climate “science” at its very core is a fraud and that makes you special indeed.

    Here is the hockey stick you helped create, the WUWT site rating that just tripled in 2013:

    http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

    -=NikFromNYC=-, Ph.D. in carbon chemistry (Columbia/Harvard)

  71. Pointman says:

    @Pointman.

    Who are you to call me a hussy? We’ve all heard about you and that Curry woman.

    Eco-Annie

  72. Streetcred says:

    Wee Wiki Willee … doesn’t mind censoring famous scientists in his rewriting of history but can’t take it handed back to him. This is a person of little ethical or moral fortitude. Low life.

  73. Somebody says:

    “This is the Essex stuff, isn’t it? No-one believes that. Just look at posts on this blog. Everyone is entirely happy to talk about average temperature.”

    Well, which exactly shows his level of ‘logic’. Which is substituted on how many (bandwagon fallacy) he thinks (like what he thionks using his fallacies would have any relevance whatoever) ‘believes’. Belief trumping reality and physics.

    Happiness to talk on a blog versus thermodynamics. That is very conclusive.

  74. Don’t become the bully you faced …

    In this case I disagree. It is pacifism that is the great evil. To let this sub-human Connolley go unpunished for his crimes against nature and man would be a grave injustice. The sub-human Connolley is an odious creature best described in portions of The Lord of the Rings. (I’ll let the reader decide which part or character)

  75. Pointman says:

    @Eco-Annie.

    “that Curry woman”? I beg your pardon, that’s Dame Judith to climate camp trollops like you.

    Pointman.

  76. davideisenstadt says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm
    …..What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation and then gloats about it?”
    Ive read your “work”, and I think that sentence applies to you. You have the self awareness of a sea urchin.
    its sad that you cant, or won,t see and appreciate what youve done.

  77. Victor Venema says: [noted]

    Dear Anthony Watts, it is regretful that you approve of the horrible language used in these comments. This ugliness is not something I had expected to see at WUWT, if only on opportunistic grounds. Don’t you want WUWT to be a broadly read somewhat respectable mainstream anti-CAGW blog? The comments on this post do not sound like conservative or Christian family values to me, but more like atheist übermensch extremist thinking.

    If you have to resort to this kind of language, you have lost the rational debate. Kudos for making this official.

    While we now know that you condone abusive language, I am wondering if you also officially support misinformation. You know that this statement by NikFromNYC is wrong: “Here is the hockey stick you helped create, the WUWT site rating that just tripled in 2013: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com

    Surely, having “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”, the number of readers is important to you and you know your blog statistics. Any other blogger known, surely you do. You know this is wrong, you need no scientific knowledge or skills to see this. You also publish the WordPress summary results at the end of the year and everyone else knows it is wrong. Don’t you think that the right thing to do would be to correct this misinformation? What would Jesus do?

    REPLY: Oh puhleeze, invoke Jesus? Nope that’s when YOU lose. What’s official is that you seem to think your opinion or worries carries any weight here. I think comments on your blog, and your blog posts are pretty ugly, but you don’t see me over there whining about it and telling you what you must do ( I know your university stoked ego can’t assimilate criticism from us mere peasants, so I don’t bother). Looking at how often your cite WUWT in negative connotations, I’d say you have a fixation.

    So, man up – what specifically is this “horrible language” you object to? Be specific if you want specific actions, otherwise its just pathetic whining from what is known as “concern troll” behavior. You don’t really care about “what would Jesus do”, Christian Values, etc. They are just tools for a punch line with you. Your typical M.O. is just like the execrable David Appell; whip up comments here then go write a post about how terrible we are here. Like Appell, your mission is pure denigration (though perhaps better shellacked than Appell’s rants with a Venema veener of special language) .

    Further, since you use the publicly funded email address comments@uni-bonn.de here, I assume then that all of your whining is in an official capacity for the university?

    Yes, feel free to be as upset as you wish, because I’m calling you out for using a university email address for private purposes, unless of course, your blog whining is a sanctioned and funded exercise. Perhaps a blog post on Victor Venema and University of Bonn would help flesh this out? – A

  78. davideisenstadt says:

    Victor Venema says:
    May 31, 2014 at 5:58 am
    ….What would Jesus do?”
    jesus would tell you to stop posting using an anonymous sock puppetty troll name.

    [ No, unfortunately, Victor Venema is all too real. http://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/mitarbeiter/venema/ ]

  79. AGW_Skeptic says:

    Sweet – Little Willy Song Lyrics

    North side , east side
    Little Willy, Willy wears the crown, he’s the king around town
    Dancing, glancing
    Willy drives them silly with his star shoe shimmy shuffle down

    Way past one, and feeling allright
    ‘Cause with little Willy round they can last all night
    Hey down, stay down, stay down down
    ‘Cause little Willy, Willy won’t go home

    But you can’t push Willy round
    Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
    Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
    Up town, down town

    Little Willy, Willy drives them wild with his run-around style
    Inside, outside
    Willy sends them silly with his star-shine shimmy shuffle smile
    Mama done chase Willy down through the hall

    But laugh, Willy laugh, he don’t care at all
    Hey down, stay down, stay down, down
    ‘Cause little Willy, Willy won’t go home
    But you can’t push Willy round

    Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
    Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
    Little Willy, Willy won’t
    Willy won’t, Willy won’t

    Little Willy, Willy won’t
    Willy won’t, Willy won’t
    Little Willy, Willy won’t
    Willy won’t, Willy won’t

    Little Willy, Willy won’t
    Willy won’t, Willy won’t
    Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
    But you can’t push Willy round

    Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
    Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
    Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
    But you can’t push Willy round

    Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
    Little Willy, Willy won’t go home

  80. Sparks says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm

    Sparks “Do you endorse the censorship of sceptically minded people on anthropogenic global warming?”

    Idiot“Nope. But you provide no examples, so this is a matter of general principles.”

    Are you for real? there are plenty of examples publicly available, I find your ‘principles’ obnoxious and untrustworthy.

    Sparks “I hate bullies! even wannabe ones.”

    idiot “That’s nice. What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation and then gloats about it?”

    I call that ‘behaviour’ a reality, you are even inclined to lie about this by suggesting people are ‘gloating’ believe me, no one is gloating! ‘disgusted’ is the word you are looking for, and while you are looking.. I’m not impressed with you, catch a grip and give your self a shake man.

    Pointman ironically forgot to point out, you are barred from “Pointy’s Bar & Grill” for your own safety. ;)

  81. ossqss says:

    Mac and Mark, I fully understand your positions and accept them. My point may have been a bit vague. Perhaps it would have been better stated as such.

    At what point does retribution turn into retaliation or restitution?

    The acts of the person in question are indeed reprehensible. He fully deserves pounded like a nail into a board. However, at some point, if you continue to pound that nail, you ultimately damage the board itself.

    Regards Ed

  82. Sparks says:

    Richo says:
    May 31, 2014 at 12:02 am

    “Yes, William is pain in the butt. However, I don’t agree with what the Pointman has done, it is censorship. I don’t think that the skeptic community interests are well served by going down the slippery Stalinist slope of the warmist commissars. “

    Read Pointman’s post again, it is made clear why William was moderated, in fact, William’s comments are the subject of the entire post, and again here at WUWT, there is no censorship taken place, just an intelligent guy elaborating on his good fortune to be able to have a reply to a wannabe oppressor… lol

  83. ferdberple says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm
    …..What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation
    ==============
    Urban legend has it that person is called a “Wiliam Connolley”. More generally the behavior is called “Real Climate”. Scientists so insecure in their beliefs, so certain that their methods will not stand up to scrutiny that they don’t publish their data, they hide the decline, and censor anyone that tried to point out the error in their methods.

    Because of course they are scientists in name only, because they don’t follow the scientific method. Instead they search only for confirmation of their beliefs, of which their are an infinite number. What they fail to search for is contradiction of their beliefs, which is what the Scientific Method requires.

    And when the contradiction is found, proving their beliefs are faulty? They circle the wagons, censor the information, prevent publication, generate endless epicycles within epicycles. Global Warming causes warming, global warming causes cooling. Global warming causes nonsense and non-science.

  84. ferdberple says:

    The CO2 theory of AGW predicted accelerated temperature increase from 2000 onwards. This prediction failed to materialize. By all measures of science, the CO2 theory of AGW is a failed theory.

    In failing to acknowledge this failure of prediction, the Climate Science community calls the credibility of all sciences into question. Public trust in science is predicated on adherence to a set of principles. Chief among those is honesty.and openness.

    When the public sees scientists covering up their mistakes, and other scientists standing by silently in fear of speaking out, the public knows it can no longer trust science.

  85. David Ball says:

    The worst thing that could happen to the narcissist is nothing. History will have forgotten him and his trespasses. This is William’s nightmare. I say “forget him”.

  86. Mac the Knife says:

    ossqss says:
    May 31, 2014 at 8:26 am

    ossqss,
    We have no quarrel, ossqss.
    I am amused by Connolley demonstrating on this WUWT blog thread just what a slow ‘learner’ he really is though.
    Mac
    PS: Appreciate your thoughtful inputs here!

  87. john robertson says:

    Great play by Pointman funny too.
    The stoat seems willfully blind, this character complaining about behaviour by others.
    The very behaviour for which William Connelly is internationally notorious, in fact probably the only thing he will be remembered for, however briefly,is profoundly absurd.
    If a fool looks into the looking glass, what looks back?.
    Apart from the chuckles, why bother giving this humourless,self obsessed, destroyer of wikipedia, any space at all?

  88. Jimbo says:

    Victor Venema says:
    May 31, 2014 at 5:58 am
    Victor Venema says: [noted]
    Dear Anthony Watts, it is regretful that you approve of the horrible language used in these comments. This ugliness is not something I had expected to see at WUWT, if only on opportunistic grounds. …..
    …………What would Jesus do?

    He would get with the times and herd his flock by SUV.

    [snip]

  89. >> William Connolley says: What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation
    >ferdberple says: (nothing to the point)

    Is there some reason you don’t want to answer the question? Is P’s behaviour embarrassing to you? If you think P’s behaviour in just fine, then don’t hesitate to say that his censorship is just what you like.

    Sparks> I call that ‘behaviour’ a reality

    You don’t have the honesty to condemn censorship, impartially; and you don’t have the guts to agree with P’s censorship either. So you take refuge in evasion.

    > Read Pointman’s post again, it is made clear why William was moderated, in fact

    Another one who refuses to see reality. My comments were censored; calling them “moderated” is just an evasion. I thought you lot claimed to be the reality-centered folk?

    > barred … for your own safety

    You really think you pussies are dangerous?

    > Are you for real? there are plenty of examples publicly available

    But, alas, you have none to hand. Nothing specific.

  90. Dan says:

    WC flushed.

  91. Jim Bo says:

    “You really think you pussies are dangerous?”

    Is there a reason this consummate turd dropper is being accommodated here?

  92. Lars P. says:

    Bill Illis says:
    May 30, 2014 at 4:18 pm

    Its pretty clear that any research paper, comment on any website, Wikipedia edits/deletions or radio repair as is his current profession, by William Connolley has been screwed up and done completely wrong.

    Why anyone would let him try to post anything on anything is beyond me.

    If only the Wikipedia creators knew beforehand that William Connolley would take their brilliant idea and completely destroy it, the whole world would be a different place today. (Wiki had the potential to be the greatest benefit to mankind of almost any other invention as well as the potential to be worth billions of dollars to the original creators, but Connolley more-than-anyone- else turned it into untrustworthy joke).

    How true and how sad to have a beautiful idea transformed into a propaganda machine.

  93. Kevin Kilty says:

    Is it true that Connolley was “banned” from Wikipedia? Can anyone tell me what the outcome of that whole affair was? I was reading some Wiki material about orbital forcing a few days ago, and he was all over the topic with some “talk” tab entries only a few days old. He was busy making sure that Loutre and Berger (2003) remains the final word on the course of the present interglacial.

  94. Sparks says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:39 am

    Playing victim again.. grow up fool.

  95. Jonas N says:

    William Connolley

    Is there any instance where you can say, in retrospect, that you were over-zealous in changing, deleting, reverting etc Wiki-entries, or (as you prefer to call it) ‘censoring’ other viewpoints than those you agree with?

    Inquiring minds would like to know. And note: I am not asking if you think you were sometimes justified. I am asking if you (now, in perspective) think that there were instances where you took your belief in your own justification too far …

  96. Sparks says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 10:39 am

    Sparks “I call that ‘behaviour’ a reality”

    idiot: “You don’t have the honesty to condemn censorship, impartially; and you don’t have the guts to agree with P’s censorship either. So you take refuge in evasion.”

    Look here you imbecile, where have you ever been censored? Name one site that has ever censored your bullshit, grow up!

    Seriously! lmao.

  97. > Is it true that Connolley was “banned” from Wikipedia?

    No. Well, actually, it depends on what you mean.

    > Can anyone tell me what the outcome of that whole affair was?

    Lots of people will tell you. Most of them will get it wrong. If you look at my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley) you’ll find plenty of discussion of the cases (well, actually, there were several, so its complex). But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned is probably what you want. My own view is http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/16/the-wikipedia-disaster-area/

    > Is there any instance

    Nothing in particular springs to mind. Whenever I ask this question I’m met with either a resounding silence, or an effort to change the subject, but: is there any article or edit in particular you’d like to discuss?

  98. Sparks says:

    Oh.. that’s right wikipedia hahaha..

  99. RACookPE1978 says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Nothing in particular springs to mind. Whenever I ask this question I’m met with either a resounding silence, or an effort to change the subject, but: is there any article or edit in particular you’d like to discuss?

    Of the 17,000 Wikipedia entries that you deleted and destroyed, which 3 of your edits were correct?
    /sarcasm (There were actually 4 correct edits.)

  100. Teddi says:

    What William Connolley did with his heavy handed editing on Wiki was criminal. He should have been prosecuted long ago…

  101. Sparks says:

    Nurse my leg hurts…

    ;)

  102. Jonas N says:

    I was asking if there is any instance where you, now, in retrospect, think you went too far?

    Obviously, lots of people think you did. Even think you did real damage to the Wiki-project, and thus are totally disagreeing with you!

    My questions was (and is): Is everyone of those instances, do you think the other party had no valid point at all? That other viewpoints not only did not have any merit at all, but also had to be kept out of the record regarding a contentious issue. Essentially that only your version of the narrative should be made known to readers?

    It’s a simple Yes/No question. And you didn’t answer …

  103. > It’s a simple Yes/No question. And you didn’t answer …

    Yes I did. I said “Nothing in particular springs to mind”. I have 58k+ edits (http://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=William+M.+Connolley&project=en.wikipedia&toplimit=10) over 10 years. I can’t remember every one in detail. I repeat my offer: “is there any article or edit in particular you’d like to discuss?” Its a simple offer “And you didn’t answer …”

    > Obviously, lots of people think you did.

    Yes, that’s true, but generally most of them also can provide no specifics – its generally something they’ve heard from someone else, an endless chain with no obvious source. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/ is part of my answer.

    > Of the 17,000 Wikipedia entries that you deleted and destroyed

    You’re not very good at this game. But, my deletion log is at https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log&offset=&limit=1500&type=delete&user=William+M.+Connolley&page=&tagfilter=&hide_patrol_log=1&hide_review_log=1&hide_thanks_log=1 if you want to look.

  104. TAG says:

    I suppose everyone here is familiar with the concept of shark jumping. The little brouhaha here is evidence that the AGW issue has jumped the shark. Banning, censoring and arguments about it show that the issue has lost content just like a sitcom that has gone on too long.

  105. davideisenstadt says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    ….” I have 58k+ edits (http://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=William+M.+Connolley&project=en.wikipedia&toplimit=10) over 10 years.”
    thats moret 15 per day, every day, 365 days per year for 10 years……no breaks, no vacations…what do you do for a living?
    besides censor those whose opinions differ from yours, that is,

  106. RACookPE1978 says:

    RACookPE1978 says:
    May 31, 2014 at 1:31 pm

    (replying to) William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 1:26 pm

    Nothing in particular springs to mind. Whenever I ask this question I’m met with either a resounding silence, or an effort to change the subject, but: is there any article or edit in particular you’d like to discuss?

    Of the 17,000 Wikipedia entries that you deleted and destroyed, which 3 of your edits were correct?
    /sarcasm (There were actually 4 correct edits.)

    You are right, I was wrong. 58,000 edits and detections. I most sincerely apologize. My value above was wrong. It was 17,000 edits per error detected.

    Now, which of those 4 errors you deleted properly was actually justified by the evidence?

  107. LewSkannen says:

    I once edited an entry on Chaos Theory on wiki.
    The article was quite god but I noticed that it had changed since I last saw it.
    Examples of Chaotic Systems used to include ‘weather and climate’ and now it only included weather. ‘Climate’ had been removed.
    So I looked at the reference to Weather. It was a paper about Climate.
    So I added Climate back in.
    So within a day the Connolley troll appears and removes the word Climate.
    So I replace it.
    It disappears again as does the reference.
    The explanation was “I looked at the reference and it wasn’t very good.”
    Funny that that reference had been fine for four years while it supported ‘Weather’ but not when it supported its own subject ‘Climate’.
    THAT is why people despise your arrogance Connolley.

  108. Connolley makes Pointman’s point for him over & over right here for our pleasure. It’s cute seeing a monkey dance for his banana.

  109. gnomish says:

    [snip I don't particularly like Mr. Connolley either, but that's over the top - Anthony]

  110. gnomish says:

    because it was so good, right? ;)
    everybody likes a little:

  111. Pointman says:

    @William

    William, are you going to let that [snip] Pointman get away with talking to me like that?

    Eco-Annie

    [Please, when you are quoting a non-WUWT conversation that started elsewhere (such as Twitter or another web site), please be very clear where the words are coming from, and who is saying what words to whom. You can certainly quote public comments from others, but just be clear who you are quoting and what they are saying. .mod]

  112. ferdberple says:

    William Connolley says: What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation
    =============
    Isn’t “hypocrite” the name for someone that complains when the shoe is on the other foot? What is the name for someone that censored Wikipedia wherever it disagrees with their narrow beliefs? Isn’t it true that the is a 97% consensus that the name for this is a “William Connolley”?

  113. ferdberple says:

    58k+ edits over 10 years.thats more than 15 per day, every day, 365 days per year for 10 years……no breaks, no vacations
    ===========
    bots as I noted above. physically impossible for a human to monitor all the pages involved.

    http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-a-Narcissist
    Part 1 of 3: Dealing With a Narcissist Long-Term

    1 Learn to identify a narcissist.

    Ok, part 1 is dealt with.

  114. ferdberple says:

    http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-a-Narcissist
    Part 2 of 3: Dealing With a Narcissist in the Short-Term
    1 Avoid the mind games. Narcissists tend to be really good liars. The most important thing to remember is to cultivate a non-responsive attitude towards them. Don’t respond.

  115. davideisenstadt says:

    ferdberple says:
    May 31, 2014 at 6:10 pm
    true that.
    just pointing out that he has a history of obsessive editing re wiki…
    using a bot to enforce one’s weltanschauung…its sad, just sad.

  116. > What is the name for someone that censored Wikipedia wherever it disagrees with their narrow beliefs?

    “A strawman” is the correct name. Nonetheless, note that you are still evading the question re P’s behaviour.

    > Don’t respond.

    Yes. It requires self-restraint. You don’t seem to have that.

    > Chaos Theory on wiki

    There’s a discussion of this at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Chaos_theory#Weather_and_climate That’s a fairly full explanation of the edits.

  117. LewSkannen says:

    Does not explain why a paper about climate was a suitable reference for ‘weather’ for four years but suddenly not good enough when it was pointed out that it referred to climate.
    We all know the real reason, of course…

  118. Martin A says:

    Some years back, I decided to read up on this “global warming” thing and find out for myself what it was all about. Immediately, a number of things seemed strange – the grafting of instrument records to temperatures obtained from proxies just at the point where the temperatures suddenly seemed to rocket skywards; the lack of a clear explanation of the greenhouse effect at (say) physics graduate level; the reliance on unvalidated models for “evidence”.

    Well before Climategate, I concluded that “climate science” in general was untrustworthy. The way “climate science” was presented by Wikipedia was one of the principal things that hastened my reaching that conclusion.

  119. Lars P. says:

    William Connolley says:
    May 31, 2014 at 2:21 pm

    Yes I did. I said “Nothing in particular springs to mind”. I have 58k+ edits (http://tools.wmflabs.org/supercount/index.php?user=William+M.+Connolley&project=en.wikipedia&toplimit=10) over 10 years. I can’t remember every one in detail. I repeat my offer: “is there any article or edit in particular you’d like to discuss?” Its a simple offer “And you didn’t answer …”

    Nothing springs to mind? Please take one by one those edits and look what you have done. It may be a start.
    I take randomly: global cooling.
    The articles about global cooling are a farce. No objectivity in presenting those but from a global warming activist point of view.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling
    Little support in scientific community? Simple lie.
    “In January 1999 contrarian Patrick Michaels wrote”
    Contrarian to what?
    Peer reviewed papers predicting global warming and cooling classification based on SkS site? What scientific reference is that? And of course self reference.

    Take the greenhouse effect.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greenhouse_effect
    The explanation is obfuscating and not clarifying the effect, the effect is a simple thermal energy transfer where the rate of the transfer is influenced through the radiation property of the gases, but not only by that.
    It could be nice and scientifically explained with examples how the heat transfer is influenced in various gas compositions and where are the challenges.
    What has been done there is a catastrophe.
    Also interesting to note that in the same article about greenhouse effect the role of CO2 and composition in the ice cores is mentioned, but not a single mention is done to the fact that CO2 lags temperature.
    So eliminating inconvenient truth, highlighting only that what would fit the respective viewpoint and stubbornly killing any attempts from other persons to correct or update.

    And so on and so on.
    The bastardisation and politicisation of the articles is what made me realise that wikipedia does not have the means and the tools to fix and I ceased contributing to it.
    It was a good idea, to make information and science available to all by the work of all has been perverted to a platform to disinform and promote specific opinions for a “good cause”, whatever that would be.
    I see wikipedia is trying to address those but not sure they will be able to fix, it will take years and years to clean-up the mess. A reputation is build up very slowly and destroyed very fast.

  120. AJB says:

    Craven motive
    vomit can veer
    to manic verve

    Move vicar net,
    vet Mac over in
    eco-vermin vat

    Kinda inevevitable really, Victor.

  121. ferdberple says:

    > is this really worth the effort?
    Well, its about me, so obviously yes
    =============
    http://www.wikihow.com/Deal-with-a-Narcissist
    How to Deal with a Narcissist
    1 Learn to identify a narcissist.
    To know whether or not you are dealing with a narcissist, ask yourself a series of questions. Does the suspected narcissist behave as though the world revolves around them?

  122. knr says:

    Kevin Kilty in reality William Connolley never went away , his just took a break from direct editing and used his sock puppets instead, his back now with his usual ‘style ‘
    Which means if he is editing the page , if you start from the idea its BS and you will not go far wrong .

  123. Jonas N says:

    OK WC, that’s what I was asking about. You think you have been infallible, still do …

    In 58k+ instances you believed that your view warranted the deletion of the view or information of others, and not one single time do you think this practice went too far …

    .. most of them also can provide no specifics ..

    Irrelevant! The question is [not whether any] of these can provide any specifics. If none of these instances warrant another perspective than yours, even to be seen. Moreover, I wasn’t asking them, I was asking you.

    If you truly believe that you have been infallible during 10+ years, as you indicate, but are reluctant to claim openly, I’ll accept that as your belief. However, after reading your arguments (on various issues) and your responses to criticism I’d say your skills are mediocre (at best) and that the idea of being an ulterior arbiter of (encyclopedial) truth would be delusional to put it mildly.

    But such delusion, the belief to already know it all, and better than anybody else, is not uncommon among some. Neither is the wish that everybody else should listen to only you and nobody else. And act upon such beliefs!

    (Those people should however not be trusted, particularly not with any ‘responsibilities’ involving other people, which unfortunately they often are eager to seek)

  124. Doug UK says:

    Willy is known extreme bias who due to ignorance and arrogance being very close bedfellows regularly calls anyone who says different to his bible “septics” and “deniers”.

    Expecting Willy to have a remotely open mind would require him to exhibit a modicum of intelligence – but what we are treated to with depressing regularity from Willy simply underlines just how much the Alarmist viewpoint relies upon these people for whom any sort of integrity and moral compass on their part is sadly lacking.

    His actions to manipulate and bully others is now openly discussed and looked upon with dismay by many trying to get to the truth about what we as a race are actually doing to our planet.

    I am sure I am simply repeating what many before have said – and that is that I totally agree that humankind’s activities do have an effect of our planet – and have done probably since the day we discovered fire. So I for one deny nothing when it comes our Anthropomorphic potential.

    But the hype that the likes of William Connolley believes in actually denies that any other version of the “truth” exists apart from their “one true belief”. And heaven help anyone that suggests that their view could be the one that is in denial over what is actually happening.

    Willy is a spent force – he had his 15 min of fame when Wiki was relatively new and still had a reasonable reputation. Connolley and his ilk were a major reason why Schools banned students from using Wiki as a reference source.

    If integrity was a taxable commodity, I could get William Connolley a Tax Rebate.

  125. dbstealey says:

    Connolley is surely the most despicable vermin on either side of the climate debate, by far. Surely he knows that, because people know themselves. Word is getting out, too:

    http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/14/global-warming-propagandist-slapped-down

    But the final word is the Planet’s word: there has been no global warming for a long, long time now. Global warming has stopped, proving connolley to be flat wrong about everything he believes in.

    Go away, connolley. You are a sorry has-been.

  126. David Ball says:

    The simple fact that he has to control the wiki, says it all.

  127. Andrew_W says:

    [snip - ugly language -mod]

  128. Jonas N> In 58k+ instances you believed that your view warranted the deletion of the view or information of others,

    No, of course not. You really ought to gain some basic familiarity with the wiki editing process before talking of it. Most of my edits involved deleting nothing.For example, https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Roberto_Mangabeira_Unger&diff=prev&oldid=610983974

    >> most of them also can provide no specifics ..
    > Irrelevant!

    No, its highly relevant. You’re sure that something terrible has been done – but you don’t know what it is; you can point to no examples of anything that has been done. Here, that’s all fine. In any place that required evidence rather than belief, you’d be laughed out of court.

    > Word is getting out, too: http://opinion.financialpost.com/2010/10/14/global-warming-propagandist-slapped-down

    That’s years old. Its also hopelessly wrong, and display total ignorance of wiki’s ways. “Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position” is wrong: it just doesn’t work that way. “Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda” is wrong too. The wiki GW article, and related, are a fairly accurate relating of the balance of current scientific opinion, which is what they should be. You disagree with that opinion, and hence you hate and fear wiki, but its dishonest of you not to accept that they do indeed simply reflect that opinion.

    > The articles about global cooling are a farce. No objectivity in presenting those but from a global warming activist point of view. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling

    OK, lets take the global cooling article. It, too, is an accurate reflection of its sources. I notice that you diss it, but have no specific criticisms to make. What, if anything, *specific* is wrong with it?

    > but not a single mention is done to the fact that CO2 lags temperature.

    Its not really relevant to that article. Its there in other articles, although not in the form you’d want, because the simplistic form you want is wrong.

    LewSkannen> Does not explain why a paper about climate was a suitable reference for ‘weather’ for four years

    Actually it does, but you do need to read it. Its my comment of “13:58, 13 January 2012″ which points out that the paper isn’t about climate.

  129. RACookPE1978 says:

    You have deleted 58,000 comments and submittals by others.

    And you justify only one. Based solely on YOUR criteria of what is relevent, and what does not have “the right kind” of references.
    That minor, irrelevant fact that CO2 lags temperature changes in the past has nothing to do with climate changes now? You claim the holy ground and the holy text of peer-review, bought and paid for by the governments getting rich off of the propaganda in the “science” they pay for.

    We have had 3o years (1945 – 1975) when CO2 increased, and global average temperatures declined.
    We have had only 21 years when CO2 rose strongly, and temperature rose. (1975 – 1996).
    We have had now almost 18 years when CO2 rose even faster, yet global average temperatures have been steady, very slightly declining.
    Based on the evidence, CO2 has no relationship with global average temperature.
    Differently, in only 21 of 4 billions years of history, has global average temperature and CO2 risen at the same time.

    Last October, Antarctic sea ice set an all-time satellite record for area at 20 million square kilometers. Antarctic sea ice anomaly alone at the beginning of May this year was 16% of the yearly average, covering an excess area 97% the size of Greenland. What is your so-called evidence of CAGW? Why are millions being killed based on your lies and fears of a warmer future that we can not affect by restricting energy use?

    YOU are the cause of the propaganda causing their deaths of millions and poverty to billions more.
    Have you no shame?

  130. David Ball says:

    Incredibly talented at completely ignoring anything that may undermine their worldview, and attacking the minutiae to derail the conversation. Also, an insatiable need to get the last word in.

    On a side note, I spent the day tearing down an ancient greenhouse that the previous owner of this home had cobbled together millennia ago. Seemed important to mention. :)

  131. Jimbo says:

    Don’t waste your time with William Connolley. Even if the world cooled for the next 2 decades he would see rising heat. Even if a mini-ice age or a full blown ice age began he would insists that his friends are right. No matter what happens he will hang onto his beliefs.

    I would be over the moon if Mr. Connolley told me that in fact he would abandon his CAGW ideas, and re-asses the IPCC temp projections, if surface temps failed to warm for the next decade. Surprise me.

  132. Lew Skannen says:

    Hang in there, Willy. You still have the tailed end of a week old thread to rant on.
    What would you do without ‘denier’ blogs, eh?

  133. dbstealey says:

    connolley suffers from extreme psychological projection: what he believes others are doing is exactly what connolley is guilty of doing himself. A few examples:

    You’re sure that something terrible has been done – but you don’t know what it is; you can point to no examples of anything that has been done. Here, that’s all fine. In any place that required evidence rather than belief, you’d be laughed out of court.

    ^Borderline insane.^ Numerous examples have been posted, but connolley pretends to ignore them all. And to say “Here, that’s all fine” is simply more projection. WUWT is one of the freest sites anywhere. It has won numerous awards as the very best Science & Technology site on the internet — and it thoroughly thumps connolley’s pathetic propaganda blog.

    Next, connolley attempts to dismiss facts by saying:

    That’s years old.

    By connolley’s criteria, Aristotle and Einstein should be disregarded, because their ideas are old.

    Next, connolley is on the defensive:

    “Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda.” That is wrong, too.

    No one has done more to trash and destroy the reputation of Wikipedia than connoley, its censor and propagandist. Wiki could have been a contender. But connolley has made it into an unreliable laughingstock in climate matters. Connolley pretends:

    The wiki GW article, and related, are a fairly accurate relating of the balance of current scientific opinion, which is what they should be. You disagree with that opinion, and hence you hate and fear wiki…

    Is connolley kidding? Hate and fear? That is simply more projection by a psychotic self-hater. Wiki is merely disregarded as a misinformation blog. The fact is that more than 31,000 American scientists and engineers — all with degrees in the hard sciences, including more than 9,000 PhD’s — have totally refuted connolley’s narrative. CO2 is harmless, and it is beneficial to the biosphere. It is not a problem. So who should we believe? A proven liar and propagandist? Or 31,000 highly educated professionals who signed their names to a statement that mocks everything connolley believes?

    And in response to the central issue of the entire debate: “…not a single mention is done to the fact that CO2 lags temperature”, connolley claims it is…

    “…not really relevant to that article.”

    It is a verifiable fact that exactly none of the endless predictions of global catastrophe have ever happened, from the bogus ‘ocean acidification’ scare, to increasing extreme weather events, to decimated Polar bear populations, to accelerating sea level rise, to disappearing Arctic ice, and to climate catastrophe in general. NONE of those endless doomsday prophecies have come true.

    When a clique makes innumerable predictions of catastrophe, and none of them ever happen, rational people will conclude that those making the predictions were flat wrong. connolley has been flat wrong about everything. Yet he continues to spew his false propaganda.

    That’s what liars do. Honest folks admit it when they have been proven wrong. Liars continue to live their lie. They own their lie. But the populace is seeing through it now. The chump is toast.

  134. philjourdan says:

    Wrong. I still edit under the same account.https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/William_M._Connolley

    And hence the reason why I – and virtually all teachers – refuse to accept any source from Wikipedia. You have destroyed the site, and are making sure it will not rise again.

    Congratulations.

  135. Jonas N says:

    WC

    Firstly: Fair enough, all 58k edits (probably) weren’t controversial or part of the information war. You say ‘most’ weren’t. OK, judgment call, and only your word for it. But regarding climate-related issues, lots of them were contentious. However:

    You still don’t get it, you need to pay attention:

    You’re sure that something terrible has been done

    Nope, never made any such claim. I was asking a question! Incidentally about something different.

    No, its highly relevant.

    Two things: a) I was asking you, not about them, and b) if most of them would/did/could not specify any particulars that is still irrelevant (unless exactly nobody could!)

    However, here I fear it turns into circular reasoning. You indicate not only that every instance was legit, but (and more importantly) that not one of them even was overly zealous or went to far. (Although your are cringing to avoid stating this openly). It follows that, in you view, none of them had a legitimate case or valid complaints.

    Essentially I was asking: Are you capable of seeing things from another perspective? That other views could be reasonable, even if they did not concur with yours? And the idea that people curious about a topic would like to hear the story told from others too, particularly wrt to conflicting views?

    Moreover:

    How many Wiki-entries have you deleted entirely?
    How many others have yoy revoked editing rights for?
    And how many have you threatened to do this to?

    (Ballpark numbers will suffice)

  136. The Other Phil says:

    I understand why some disagree, some strongly disagree, and some even have contempt for the view of William Connolley.

    None of which excuses the reference to him in the original article as “creature” or the comment reference “sub-human”.

  137. I agree with The Other Phil. It doesn’t help to simply throw names at anyone, especially not terms with such an unpleasant history.

  138. plutarchnet says:

    “When the evidence is against you, pound the law. If the law is against you, pound the evidence. If both are against you, pound the table.”

    Or, in this case, spend your time in name-calling.

  139. The Other Phil says:

    Kevin Kilty asked if it was true that Connolley was banned. Connolley responded with a link, but some of the material at the link was in Wikispeak and could use some translation.

    The term “banned” without qualification, means that a community process (there is more than one) has reached a conclusion that a particular editor should not be editing any part of the English Wikipedia.

    That did not happen to Connolley, so a narrow answer would be no. However, as he noted, it depends on what you mean.

    The community can also reach a conclusion that an editor should have some limitations on what they can contribute. A common example is a topic ban, in which an editor is requested not to edit any article on a particular topic. That is what happened to Connolley; he was given a topic ban which meant he could not edit any articles relating to climate.

    Such bans are usually open-ended, with a time period, for example, six months, after which an editor can appeal and ask for modification to the ban. They typcially do not expire, unless there is a request for a change.

    Approximately a year after the original topic ban in October 2010, a modification was requested.

    Starting in October 2011, Connolley was no longer banned from climate articles in general, but he was still banned from editing any article about a living person, in the climate area. This might seem ad hoc, but Wikipedia has special rules applying to any article involving living people (often referred to as BLP, short for Biographies of Living Persons). That topic ban is still in place.

    While not specifically asked, there has also been confusion about Connolley’s status as an administrator (editors who have the ability to do certain actions, notably the ability to delete articles, and the ability to block editors). He started out as an editor, acquired the administrator role, then lost the administrator role. That action was sometimes erroneously reported as a ban, or as an action which meant he could not longer edit. Neither were true, he simply lost the ability to delete articles or block editors.

    (I’ve tried to write casually, without lapsing into Wikijargon too much. If anyone cares about more details, let me know.)

  140. dbstealey says:

    Evil is not limited to the occasional spree killer. In the last century Hitler and Stalin oversaw cults of personality built on this same model under which millions died. Stalin’s Communism and Hitler’s National Socialism were messy and contradictory ideologies. They ultimately existed so that one man could exercise his power fantasies and destroy as much of the world as he could. And here in our own country, there is an ideology that is obsessed with controlling and shaping all of human behavior. We call that ideology by many names such as liberalism or progressivism, but it’s more accurately a diseased narcissism whose followers strive to stamp out anyone who doesn’t think like them, and to control the lives of everyone else.

    That’s from another blog, but guess who it applies to here [my bold].

    It also applies to Michael Mann. Anyone reading his tweets and other comments knows what a warped person he is. Not as warped as connolley, but in the same ballpark. Personally, I could understand pretending to have won the Nobel Prize. Lots of insecure folks self-aggrandize with fabricated accomplishments. But Mann constantly flings out insults at anyone and everyone who doesn’t toe his line, and he cowers from any fair debate [I suspect that connolley would also tuck tail and run from any fair, moderated debate, since the science flatly contradicts his bogus narrative].

    We are dealing with people who would be rejected by any normal society. But this is life in the new millennium. We just have to keep plugging away. And so far, it’s working.

  141. Jonas N says:

    The Other Phil, thanks for that explanation.

    This means that at least some people not only think he went to far, but acted upon it, and decisively even forcefully so.. And these were his peers even.

    But he tells us “nothing particular springs to mind” when asked the same question, carefully avoiding a direct answer.

    I too noticed that he has been very active on pages of persons whose views he’d rather not have been publicly known, so the BLP-issue is understandable. But more notable is the lack of self awareness, where he here (and elswhere) decries that people don’t get to hear both sides of the story.

    At Wiki, his rationale (or justification) for having the story be told by only his side of the fence seems to have been mainly procedural/technical: Because he got to set, interpret and selectively enforce ‘rules’ at only his discretion.

    Shorter, and as I see it: ‘He did because he could, and since he could, it was legit’ …

    Well, those are exactly the people and views you don’t want to have writing neither the history nor making any ‘rules’ pr wielding any power over others.

    [Reply: Anthony graciously allowed Wm Connolley to have his say here, even though Connolley was banned from this site for continued bad behavior. Anthony has not notified moderators that Connolley's ban has been lifted, so future comments from him go into the bit bucket. ~mod.]

  142. philjourdan says:

    @The Other Phil (I guess in my case you really are the other Phil!)

    Thank you for the explanation. But Wiki’s action is akin to allowing a school to rehire a pedophile once they have served their prison sentence. It is stupid. And probably the reason that Wiki has lost its reputation (if it ever had it).

  143. philjourdan says:

    @The other Phil

    None of which excuses the reference to him in the original article as “creature” or the comment reference “sub-human”.

    Very true. Only a real person who is an idiot could do what he did and think it was somehow productive.

Comments are closed.