Tom Nelson spots this droll duo:
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.
The trouble with these people is that they mistake widely believed fallacies which they happen to believe to be true, for facts, because these fallacies support a cause. Facts support no cause, nor do they oppose a cause. They just are.
As one of the comments above suggests, they should be introduced to the scientific method. ALL of it, including the inconvenient parts which destroy their cause.
Mann, Hansen et al and all their uncritical acolytes have been abusing and ignoring the scientific method for far too long.
Otter says:
April 21, 2012 at 3:02 am
“I really think an addendum needs to be made to this article, detailing just what he did in Wikipedia, and why he is no longer there.”
He is there again for quite a while now; I think not with admin privilegues, but he’s allowed to edit again.
Urederra says:
April 21, 2012 at 2:55 am
One proof is enough to refute a scientific theory…
Which makes the AGW cultists the ultimate contrarians — they believe that one proof of *anything* they’ve posited will be enough to validate the whole shebang…
It seems to me that the BIGGEST difference between deniers and Mann Made Global Warming Creationists ™ is that deniers on the whole are a lot more open to listening to positions that are different to theirs where as the creationists will not have a bar of it. To the Mann Made Global Warming Creationists ™ anyone who dares question their position must be utterly destroyed, not just their ideas but their very being must be utterly and completely destroyed so that they no longer pose a danger to their religious beliefs.
The second difference that stands out between the two camps is that the Mann Made Global Warming Creationists ™ arent averse to projecting their weaknesses, ignorance and bigatory on the deniers.
Mailman
Well he is right about it. There are a lot of stupids here. Just like in other places on the web.
If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs.
I told that to two different bloggers here on WUWT. Both are too reluctant to do so. So therefore these people will never be taken seriously. At least not by me.
I am sorry, but it is as it is.
Truely stupid people use extraneous ‘L’s.
Oh Jesus – as if quoting the freakin’ bible in a scientific context had ever produced a winner…. you may wish to try a notch better than that.
From the Policy Lass’s blog:
So, she has FIVE very serious tomes on her bookshelf and ‘hopes’ to read them in a week or two and write a review of them? Bet she doesn’t. I bet she still has colouring books on her shelves she hasn’t finished yet.
“occaisionally”? So who is stupid?
If we enter a cooling period (without significant volcanic ‘effects’) then who is going to look stupid?
“They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do.”
Policy Lass, knowing what you have been informed of and who is informing you is probably step one in figuring out how much you know.
Robbie says:
April 21, 2012 at 3:46 am
“Well he is right about it. There are a lot of stupids here. Just like in other places on the web.
If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs.
I told that to two different bloggers here on WUWT. Both are too reluctant to do so. So therefore these people will never be taken seriously. At least not by me.
I am sorry, but it is as it is.”
Oh cry me a river. Robbie, a serious question. Why is every adjustment the warmist scientists make, no matter to which measurement, in the warming direction? Why are instruments always misconstructed in such a way that they tend to show too much cooling and need to be fixed through adjustments? Is that a kind of Murphy’s Law of warmist science?
Surely the DK effect describes Connolly and this other person. After all if someone is wrong it’s easy to tell them why, it’s also easy to be polite.
policylass: “it’s rampant at both CA and WUWT and Climate Etc”
Pretty much says it all. She can’t even do basic arithmetic.
Intelligent people don’t label other people stupid.
People who constantly lose at a debate resort to labelling the other side stupid however.
—————-
Wikipedia had the potential to become the greatest resource mankind has ever seen – information on every virtually topic known about, available at the touch of button to everyone from young children to grandmas across the whole planet instantly. People like Connelly turned it into an untrustworthy source and caused enough damage that the concept is no longer useful at all.
Way to go Connelly. Good job. Rather than allow the rest of the planet to have access to “objective” rather than your biased information only, you destroyed it instead.
AndyG55 says:
April 20, 2012 at 9:49 pm
Gees, how does she cope when she is arguing with herself.. ???
which one is stupidest ?
UnderGrad in science, but doesn’t use it.. says it all.. coffee shop waitress perhaps?
___________________________________________
NO, she went on to get an advanced degree in POLITICAL Science. (snicker, guffaw) I think that says it all. I wonder what lobby group she works for. Does her pay check come from BP, Shell Oill, or Standard Oil (Rockefeller Foundation) or perhaps the evil FORD (motor car) Foundation. You know the people who fund CAGW.
Dang! Connolley’s snarky condescending “you’re just too stupid to understand climate science” posts here at WUWT probably did almost as much to educate people about the lack of science supporting catastrophic anthropogenic global warming as Willis Eisenbach’s logical, carefully thought out articles. This truly is a shame. Gonna miss that boy!
Who is teh Policy ass? Oops typos!
So, we are all stupid? only stupid people believe what they are told without looking/checking the facts!
1.no real warming in over a decade
2. acrtic ice appears to be on the rebound
3. sea levels dropping
4.still not found the “Hot Spot” that the models say should be there
5.models are getting further and further away from “observed real world data”
w connolley fiction writer and teller of facts LOL……1 less to worry about, good riddance
Policy Lass: PhD in “Social Science”?
Ah, a Social Scientist. got it. Explains a lot…..
Though life must be simpler in monochrome it must be pretty boring…
Robbie says:
April 21, 2012 at 3:46 am
……If the bloggers here want to fight the science battle they should publish their rebuttals in peer-reviewed magazines and not in blogs…..
________________________________________
Why bother? Peer-reviewed magazines are no longer the supporters of the scientific method they once were. Science itself has taken a beating in the reputation department.
You are committing the logical fallacy of “Peer-reviewed” = “verified & validated” = TRUTH, which is utter hogwash. I am not surprised you are pushing that fallacy though since it is one of the foundation fallacies of CAGW.
Since you like Peer reviewed studies…
I find that pretty pathetic. About 3/4 of scientiasts “Cheat” and you want use to spend the time and effort to publish in the same venue as these cheats?
What seems to be a good example of the intellectual obscuring W.C. engages in, was at Craig Loehle’s post 4/17, Scientist’s rebuttal of Michael Mann’s “denier”and other unsavory labels in his book. Connolley chimes in at 9:33 am. He makes tangential, irrelevant and fallacious comments, never engaging in actual discourse for a day or two.
Research shows that stupid people — people who truly are ignorant — tend to think they know far more than they do. They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do.
Research shows that smart people — people who truly are iintelligent — tend to think they know far more than they do. They are also more likely to think informed people know less than they do.
Poor guy. Such a burden to be so damn smart. Poor guy.