William Connolley and Wikipedia: Turborevisionism

Turboblocke:
So, it seems you’re a high school graduate with no CV, quoting simple high school chemistry like it’s advanced physics. Should we be impressed by having to multiply the % of CO2 X the total pressure to get the partial pressure? That’s your rebuttal to Dr Glassman??
Since you’re not capable of refuting Dr Glassman, or even of understanding his deconstruction of your high school conjecture in his Q&A and related links, you’ll understand why it’s appropriate to dismiss your attempt at criticism. This isn’t Wikipedia; when you stumble over the science here, you will get pushback with the facts.
Just look at all the comments in this thread. Do you actually believe that you are right, and everyone else is wrong? Look at William Connolley’s quote, presuming to be the authority on what are facts, and what is opinion:

“I note you inserted some specific detail that I acutally removed, as I believed it only caused confusion between opinion and fact, and isn’t really necessary, anyway.” [emphasis added]

Could Connolley be any more arrogant and insufferable? He is the primary reason that WUWT has replaced Wikipedia’s totally pro-AGW propaganda pages with honest, open, uncensored discussion from both sides. You would never find a quote like Connolley’s here.
On this “Best Science” site, the truth is sifted from all the pro & con comments by the readers themselves — not by one Soviet-style individual who selectively removes thousands of scientifically skeptical facts debunking the CO2=CAGW conjecture, just so others can’t see them and decide for themselves. That’s not science, that is pushing an agenda.
WUWT is ethical, and Wikipedia’s AGW pages are not. They are pure propaganda. How can you excuse Connolley’s constant, unremitting censorship of anyone who has a different point of view, and provides specific facts supporting their arguments? Condoning Connolley’s censorship of anyone but his own puppets is inexcusable, and it makes a mockery of the scientific method.
Next, since you can’t follow Dr. Glassman’s explanation, here is another well documented paper discussing CO2 vapor pressure. It’s a little beyond high school physics, but you should be able to understand most of it. It deconstructs the repeatedly falsified CO2=CAGW conjecture. Debunkings of the CO2 scare like this are immediately censored out of Wiki’s AGW propaganda pages. Really, could Wiki be any more biased and one sided? And Wiki’s kissy-face propaganda giving China a free pass isn’t lost on the rest of us. With Wikipedia’s constant, top of the page begging for moneymoneymoney, it’s pretty clear that throwing Jimmy Wales a bone keeps the repeatedly punished William Connolley in a position to delete skeptical facts disputing AGW. We’re supposed to believe that no one else is capable of doing the same job as William Connolley?
George Soros funnels money to alarmist blogs. And China bailed out an entire country this year with $5 billion, when Iceland was on the ropes financially. You can be certain that China didn’t do it without a private quid pro quo. So throwing a little chump change Wikipedia’s way is a cheap and easy way to buy their AGW propaganda. Or maybe you’re naive, and believe that Wales keeps a guy on board who is turning his site into the equivalent of realclimate, and forfeiting Wikipedia’s reputation in the process.
Finally, FYI: CO2 is mainly a function of SST; human activity has little to do with it. The planet emits by far the largest share of CO2 naturally. You probably didn’t know that. But then you’re new here, and you’ve been getting spoon fed your AGW propaganda by Wiki. Stick around here, and you’ll learn the side of the debate you’ve been missing.
For example, temperatures have been lower in the past than they are now many times — with CO2 concentrations up to twenty times higher — for millions of years at a time. CO2 is an effect of temperature — not a cause. By mendaciously deleting data like this, Connolley sacrifices scientific truth on the altar of his Leftist ponytail politics.
The fact that the title of this article is ‘Turborevisionism’, and that you’re a new poster calling yourself ‘Turboblocke’ is no coincidence. You are either Connolley or one of his string puppets. Which is it?

Turboblock:
“You seem strangely reluctant to argue the point.” Now there’s an example of pure psychological projection. Turboblock has avoided answering numerous points and questions, for example:
Arrhenius’ 1906 paper recanting his 1896 paper re climate sensitivity. The climate’s sensitivity is so small that it can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes, no matter how much the minor trace gas CO2 rises. Even using Arrhenius’ 1906 sensitivity number [≅1], we have nothing to worry about even if CO2 doubles. And Arrhenius’ 1906 number was likely at least double the true number. Therefore, wasting more money on the CO2=CAGW scare is foolish and irresponsible.
And:
Turboblocke was asked to post his CV to compare it to Dr Glassman’s, after disparaging Glassman’s knowledge. Still waiting.
And:
“The real problem is William Connolley’s dishonest redacting of thousands of articles and comments that simply presented different [and more scientifically credible] points of view, which refuted the debunked conjecture that rapidly rising CO2 will cause rapidly rising temperatures, leading to runaway global warming.” Rather than allow Wiki readers to read both sides and make up their own minds, Connolley works overtime to delete one side of the debate; the scientific skeptics’ side. All that’s left are alarmist scare stories, temperature graphs with colors ranging from hot orange to deep red, and repeatedly debunked hokey stick charts.
Censoring different points of view is not science, it is partisan political advocacy, and an unethical abuse of his [Connolley’s] position within the increasingly discredited Wiki AGW posts. Try to justify the blatant, ongoing and one-sided censorship by Connolley and the typical climate alarmist blogs, with the requirement of the scientific method for full and complete transparency and cooperation. Censoring those who disagree with AGW is how Connolley and Wikipedia operate.
And:
Residence time for CO2: click. This is the central issue in the CO2=CAGW debate. Because if CO2 residence times are on a century long time-scale, then as CO2 rises rapidly, the planet’s temperature will rise rapidly in response. That is not happening.
Conversely, if CO2 residency time is short, eg: 10 years or less, then there is nothing to worry about. And as we see from dozens of peer reviewed studies, CO2 persistence is very short. Only the UN/IPCC preposterously assumes that CO2 remains in the atmosphere for a century. They must claim that, because the entire alarmist case against CO2 falls apart with short residency times; the biosphere will easily accommodate excess CO2.
Not sure what the complaint is with the solubility of CO2. As Dr Glassman points out, when ocean temperature rises, the physics of solubility causes atmospheric CO2 to naturally increase. So of course CO2 increases, and the natural ocean outgassing of CO2 swamps the relatively tiny human CO2 emissions. But the natural rise in CO2 is an effect, not a cause, of temperature rises.
It looked like Dr Glassman was referring to a geologic time scale when he wrote, “If increases in carbon dioxide, or any other greenhouse gas, could have in turn raised global temperatures, the positive feedback would have been catastrophic.” But there has been no positive feedback from the [largely] natural increase in CO2, so there has been no runaway global warming. Even if CO2 levels more than doubled, there would still be no climate catastrophe: As Glassman points out: “While the conditions for such a catastrophe were present in the Vostok record from natural causes, the runaway event did not occur.”
So CO2 can not cause runaway global warming, and that was the central conjecture of the CO2=CAGW promoters. Now that the science on that point is settled, there is no reason to throw more good money after bad, and certainly no reason to worry about the silly catch-word of the day, “carbon”.
[And for those who think the Wiki AGW pages or Connolley are honest, see here.]