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

Somethin' Stupid

Somethin' Stupid (Photo credit: Wikipedia)

Tom Nelson spots this droll duo:

Misc : Stoat

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

Arguing With Stupid People | The Policy Lass

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

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

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

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
EJ

I think that all these folk need to be reminded of the definition of the scientific method

Wayne Delbeke

“Life is hard. It’s harder if you’re stupid.” John Wayne

Anything is possible

Wiiliam who?

juanslayton

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

Madman2001

I, for one, enjoyed his posts, although I would not often agree with his positions.

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

noaaprogrammer

I get such a kick out of this … (add teh “of”) !

GeoLurking

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

Chris B

Projection requires an ignorance of self.

Connolley is just not a very likeable person. He has repeatedly misused his position. On Wikipedia he arbitrarily censored comments that did not agree with his wacky and repeatedly falsified global warming narrative. Not once, but hundreds of times.
Bye-bye, Billy. You brought this on yourself. It is a result of your major character flaw. The world is better off without your unethical machinations. Good riddance, as you fade into well deserved obscurity.

philincalifornia

http://metaclimate.org/about/
Says it all. Undergrad degree in science, but finds the PhDs on here stupid people. What a cretin.
Soon to be an anachronistic cretin.

John Trigge

“Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do.”
From the Bible, Luke 4:23 (King James Version):
And he said unto them, Ye will surely say unto me this proverb, Physician, heal thyself: whatsoever we have heard done in Capernaum, do also here in thy country.

Paul Marko

How sad. How little time and effort she must have expended to evaluate the controversy.

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

AndyG55

Gees, how does she cope when she is arguing with herself.. ???
which one is stupidest ?
UnderGrad in science, but doesn’t use it.. says it all.. coffee shop waitress perhaps?

RockyRoad

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

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

First, A friend of Luboš Motl’s says I don’t have a clue that I don’t have a
clue, then Connolley assures me I don’t understand basic physics, finally Willis tells me “… you’ve made a very bad start.”
Maybe I should hang out at http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/ for a while, it will annoy Connolley and give him a chance to rail at WUWT without having to come over here.
Hmm, no mention of the CSM science quiz over there, I could bring that up and rant about the bogus question I missed.

Oh brother … as if these guys have built anything of practical use in the world that has stood the test of time, the test of weather and wind, and all manner of force nature can ‘dish out’ (or the environmental-lab’s shaker table and/or temp-chamber can throw at it) …
Book-learnt-smart, paper-pushing, report writing, pencil-necked, livin’ in a make-believe world, model-‘running’, absolute-power addicted, educationally-sheltered, unable to relate to the real-word, holier-than-thou, detached uber-geeks (not to be confused with your average garden variety geek which is harmless yet lovable).
.

Anything is possible says:
April 20, 2012 at 8:48 pm
Wiiliam who?
Anything, as no one explained who this demagogue is, I thought I’d post a link to an explanation that has quite a few valid points. http://www.conservapedia.com/William_M._Connolley
on the other hand, if you were merely posting your question as a point of irony (more people know who Asange is than Connolley), then forgive me, as I am indeed, stupid.

Adam

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

Mac the Knife

“Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do.”
Uhhmmm… No, Mr. Connolley.
Research shows that stupid people have lower intelligence and have more difficulty learning. Conversely, ignorant people are just uniformed. There is no relationship between ignorance and intelligence. Let me state this succinctly, Mr Connolley. Ignorance is curable. Stupidity is permanent. You can quote me.
Confusing stupidity with ignorance is, well frankly, just stupid Mr. Connolley. Mind you, I’m not mocking ‘teh stupidity’ of your statement, just clarifying the facts so you might learn a simple truth, if you are capable.
MtK

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

Antbones

He should go check out the heartland website… It’s worse than wuwt by far..

gnomish

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

“…the science just goes on “. In their case it’s “teh science just goes on”

J.Hansford

Connolley is deliberate in his advancement of AGW propaganda. He has read enough about both the science and the politics to understand that his position is entirely political….. He has been editing Wiki pages for years on the subject, so he can’t plead ignorance….
If Connolley was in anyway scientific, he would understand the uncertainties and would be conversant about those uncertainties….. But he isn’t. That makes him a deliberate propagandist.

Mooloo

The D-K effect is, indeed, rampant here and on most sceptic sites. It can hardly not be, because as soon as you have any number of people you will find some who know less than they should.
But of course that also applies to AGW sites too. I wonder if Mr Connolly is honestly so stupid he thinks everyone who agrees with him is clever than average!
The cure for the D-K effect is to let people who do know what they are talking about counter any false arguments. And that is where the sceptic sites win hands down. They allow debate and request proof (real proof, not proof from authority). Meanwhile our little stoat does everything he can to shut down debate, thereby ensuring any false statements which toe the correct line remain unchallenged.
Another corollary of the D-K effect is that everyone suffers from it at some time. Connolly appears to assume that he could not possibly suffer from it. Which means that he is blind to his weaknesses. The first sign of the D-K effect is people being blind to their weaknesses.
People are always going to be wrong. Everyone is wrong sometimes. Even in fields in which they are expert. Thinking your side has all the answers is pretty much evidence that they don’t.

David A

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

Bill Tuttle

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

At least he’s consistent…

Wayne

A quote from Einstein that the warmists might contemplate to help open their minds
“A man should look for what is, and not for what he thinks should be.”

Bill Tuttle

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

MikeN

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

Brian H

Research clearly shows that liberals are much worse than all others at comprehending or predicting others’ ideas and positions, because they’re so SURE they know-it-all already. Conservatives, on the other hand, can accurately characterize and predict the positions and attitudes of liberals.
Policy Lass is a perfect illustration of the way self-righteous certainty works. Or doesn’t.

Luther Wu

J.Hansford says:
April 20, 2012 at 10:58 pm
Connolley is deliberate in his advancement of AGW propaganda. He has read enough about both the science and the politics to understand that his position is entirely political….. He has been editing Wiki pages for years on the subject, so he can’t plead ignorance….
If Connolley was in anyway scientific, he would understand the uncertainties and would be conversant about those uncertainties….. But he isn’t. That makes him a deliberate propagandist.

___________________
Agreed.
Connolley’s disengagement will not fool anyone, although it may lend some vapid reinforcement to those of similar misanthropic bent.

krischel

Any objective observer, no matter how thoroughly convinced of the truth of AGW, would have to cringe at the social media behavior of warmists versus deniers (to evenly use the epithets assigned to each side). Deniers, as crazy and silly as some may be, (say, believing in intelligent design), have been trying to have a real conversation about real issues for a long, long time. They’re interested in getting to the bottom of things, be it data, or the elusive falsifiable hypothesis statement of AGW. Opinions, even contrary ones, are openly allowed and addressed.
Warmists, on the other hand, as rational and atheistic as any may be, have been trying to shut down any conversation about the real issues for a long, long time. Without realizing it, they’ve built up an edifice of belief and orthodoxy as arbitrary and capricious as any monotheistic religion. We see this in their behavior both on comment boards opposed to their views, and their transparently defensive censorship when others comment on their turf.
As a rational, freethinking atheist since 1st grade, I’m sad to say I have more polite arguments and debates with my fundamentalist christian friends over evolution and gay marriage, than I do with my liberal socialist hippie friends over global warming, or Keynesian economics. As dogmatic as any evangelical friend of mine has ever been, they’ve never been the MSM caricature of sign-waving-abortion-doctor-killing-yahoos. And as seemingly rational and composed many of my liberal pals have ever been, they’ve gone completely nuts when challenged on the premises of their opinions.
tl;dr – WUWT: come for the articles, stay for the comments. For all the hurly burly, this place has been open, honest, and remarkably tolerant of trolls 🙂

Mr Green Genes

gnomish says:
April 20, 2012 at 10:34 pm
just like that story of masturbation making hair grow on your palms – the dunning-kreuger gambit is designed for a purpose.
nobody expected you to believe your palms would grow hairy – at least not for more than a second – what they wanted to do was see if you LOOKED, policy lass.

You mean it doesn’t????
Sigh. All those wasted years …
(Sorry, couldn’t resist it)

Kelvin Vaughan

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

Shona

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

Tenuk

I’ve often wondered if the guy is real.
None of his arguments had substance and often made no sense. Perhaps he is is a bot?

Mat

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

DirkH

Old tactic; like Mooney’s accusations that republicans have no brains, defective brains, etc., or Krai Norgaard who says skeptics are mentally ill.
The pattern is that the warmists attack us personally now instead of bringing forth their argument, well basically their only argument ever was computer simulations and they don’t need a skeptic to fall apart, they do that by themselves.
So this is just one more sign of desperation and circling the wagons. The next of them who comes over here should explain why every adjustment to sea ice, sea level or temperature goes into the warm direction. I still need a scientific explanation for that. It’s an unexplicable phenomenon. New physics?

Steve C

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

Philip Bradley

On her About page, she states she is unable to evaluate the science (of climate) and relies on the ‘consensus’, which we know to be a bogus fabrication.
So she doesn’t understand the science herself and apparently makes no effort to, but attacks other people who try and understand the science as ‘stupid’.

Philip Bradley

In part the problem that people like this woman have is they are unable to separate science as a process from science as a product.
The process of science is exploring uncertainty. But the product of science is removal of uncertainty, at least most of the time.

Policy Lass? Why should anyone be concerned about the opinion of someone calling herself Policy Lass?

Urederra

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

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

Exactly, I like your post.
I may add that the biggest advantage of the sceptical position in science is that you only need to demonstrate one flaw of a theory to refute it, or at least that was the case in Michelson and Morley times. One thing wrong and the whole theory needs to be rewritten, It happened to Newton and it will happen to Einstein.
That does not seem to happen to CAGW. No tropospheric hotspot, no global glacier receeding, no accelerated sea level rise, no polar caps shrinking, no unadjusted rural temperature rise and still some people think that CAGW is a valid theory.
One proof is enough to refute a scientific theory, Still some people like Connolley are looking for a smoking gun that proves CAGW right and censors the proofs that refute it.

Lars P.

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

Otter

Anthony, I was just yesterday thinking that a Conolley post was needed here. Reason? He kept saying that he had been Lied about.
I really think an addendum needs to be made to this article, detailing just what he did in Wikipedia, and why he is no longer there.
Note to willie~ then you can write a wiki article about this! Oh…. wait….

Bill Tuttle

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

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