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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Oh good grief. Next we’ll be seeing the “mailed fist” again from our he-man.
Hope this macho stuff helps you with the ladies.
“When in doubt, shoot the messenger” appears to be Connolley’s logic. Its very sad.
At, W Connally
Do you still think the peer review process is working, despite what we’ve seen in the Climategate files and learned that its such a small group of people reviewing each others papers?
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.”
The peer reviewed magazines are increasingly made irrelevant. Like the NASA arsen-bacteria hype, the peer reviewed non-sense has been rebutted in 2 days on the web.
http://rrresearch.fieldofscience.com/2010/12/arsenic-associated-bacteria-nasas.html
Important scientific blogs are becoming a better medium where ideas can be much faster discussed and reviewed and would eliminate non-sense in terms of days. Especially in cases where peer-review become pal-review…
In response to Bill Illis who said: “Wikipedia had the potential… People like Connelly turned it into an untrustworthy source.”
W.M. Connelly said:
“You need evidence for that. And no, recycled inaccurate WUWT posts aren’t good enough.”
Here’s one fresh piece of evidence that Wikipedia is no longer a trustworthy source. On the YDIH talk page. SkepticalRaptor recently said:
“Only to shut up everyone did I edit in the article, but it really doesn’t qualify as a WP:RS, by any definition of the word. By the way, the work in Mexico has been debunked by a lot of people smarter than me.”
His Edit stands as the final edit of the YDIH page before it was closed to edits by anyone. So his unqualified, and skeptically biased opinion was upheld. And his appeal to inappropriate authority in the opinions of some anonymous people he only describes as being smarter than him was held up as a more reliable reference than peer reviewed literature.
When an appeal to inappropriate authority, or the personal opinions of anyone, regardless of their academic standing is allowed to be seen as a more reliable reference than refereed literature on any given subject the scientific method becomes meaningless. And Wikipedia’s value as a scientific reference falls with it.
I’ve never seen a post from ‘policy lass’ here before. Does she go under the moniker ‘lazy teenager’ by any chance?
I get the feeling W Connely et al are throwing a bit of a collective tantrum over their failure to get themselves banned here through a continual and deliberate use of smug faux-condescension in their comments. This banning must be necessary for Connely – he desperately needs to be censored by skeptic blogs in order to avoid being consumed by shame in a cloud of his own reeking hypocrisy, which must be becoming increasingly evident to even himself. I’ve never seen any serious attempt by him or fellow propagandists (state funded or otherwise) to persuade anyone of the validity of their arguments (and I’m open to persuasion), just the odd series of evasive hand waving assertions, regurgitation of boilerplate propaganda and nitpicking of trivial points, followed by a swift run to the hills when discovered. Now they know they will called out every time on the hollowness of their arguments and shrillness of their ad hominem, they have nothing left do do but disguise their failure as exasperation and slink off to the safety of their echo chambers and wiki-fiefdoms. See ya later, and try harder next time!
I have to say I’m in two minds about Mr Connolley, on the one hand he is annoying, and his past actions at Wiki have ruined it as a valid source for many many people. On the other hand, it’s great that he has this arrogance, which more often than not, will come back and bite! It’s the same with all the die hard alarmists – their closed minds but open mouths (or keyboards) will forever be recorded.
Frankly, the non-scientific bloggers hold no interest for me at all (clearly, WMC is largely in that category!). I will only visit sites that display and discuss the science in an open manner where science is king – not simply a scientific stance. To this day, WUWT is easily the best and most wide reaching blog for that, and is the only one I frequent regularly – that kind of reputation must really nark the likes of Connolley – but that’s good isn’t it?
and as for him posting here, that’s good too – because if we all trundle to his patch, moderation, twisted posts, etc – will likely all ensue – and we will have wasted our time, whilst making yet another alarmist ‘look’ cool. At least here, WUWT keeps the record straight and he (or the likes of Tamino) cannot weasel our words!
I think of WUWT, as a bit like a block of flats or small village – we have grumpy folk, clever folk, daft folk, funny folk, the worldy experienced, the fixated, opinionated, and of course the resident ‘experts’ (real or imagined), and dare I say, the occasional honest person who simply ‘doesn’t get it’ – but the community spirit is good and accepts all comers. Personally, if only 1 in a thousand visitors ‘gets something’ from the site – and in particular, gets the scientific curiosity and skepticism to query if the ‘concensus’ may just be wrong – then that is a bonus. But more importantly, it is free speech and open discussion, open education and reviews about important matters – something I’m sure many ordinary folk really need to experience more often……
Keep it up Anthony and all the mods……..
I feel sorry for Connelly, you have to understand that he believes what he believes like iron believes in rust. He’s got big time religion, all he is, is mixed up in his beliefs all that he sees as good in himself is in those beliefs. He is fragile and delicate and oh so full of pain.
He will burn and crash in time, and possible learn but don’t expect any politeness or understanding until then.the true believer is incapable of seeing themselves as others see them, he has a PURPOSE you see and that trumps everything.
Point and laugh and be happy in your life. It drives them mad.
There is a pincer movement going on. “Connect the Dots” on the even days, and on the odd days Call people who disagree with you “Stupid.”
Off hand, I think people who think the D-K Effect explains a lot, are probably people who misunderstand much. There is a perverse self-paradox in the theory worthy of self parody.
I’m out of step. I’m connecting the dots and following the money every day.
wmconnolley says:
April 21, 2012 at 11:33 am
You need evidence for that.
—————————————–
Ironic don’t you think. That would have been a good first principle for Wiki editing and for climate science in general.
It is my suspicion that the field is slowly being left to the snarkers and the paid disinformers. In a non statistically significant, and highly subjective way, it seems to me that there has been an erosion in the quantity of scientifically adept alarmist believers commenting on blogs. I don’t know whether it is dawning on the scientifically adept that there is great uncertainty in the science, whether it is understanding that catastrophes are unlikely, or what. Of course, the great misbegotten policy actions roll on, but I believe scientists in general are snapping to the fact that there is pathology in climate science.
Susan was once fairly formidable. Now she’s becoming pitiable. The Weasel has always been straight out of the Inquisition.
==================
william connelley c.v.
Terminated from a govt job. Check.
Ran for public office and lost. Check.
Booted from Real Climate blog. Check.
But hey, he’s got a wiki article. 😉
“Everbody is ignorant … only on different subjects.” – Will Rogers
I come here at times so as to be a little less ignorant of the subjects that are covered here. The Mannequins out there make all kinds of claims to justify taking more taxes and more control of people and nations. Even before finding this site or others like it, generally, those claims didn’t ring true. I’ve always been interested in science. I’m no expert but what was being said didn’t seem right, though I couldn’t explain why. I guess I was also spotting some ot the logical fallacies talked about under another heading, though I didn’t know they had names. (i.e. The mainstream media kept talking about “Global Warming”. When it started to become obvious that said warming wasn’t happening, they began to interject “Climate Change” and “Climate Change” has almost replaced “Global Warming”. Now “Extreme Weather” is being mentioned more and more.) So I come here and to other sites like Junkscience.com to become less ignorant. I don’t go to the alarmist sites much at all. I’ve never made a comment on one. To spot a counterfeit bill you don’t study the counterfeits. They change all the time. You study the genuine.
In “Arguing With Stupid People” I read right through to the end thinking that the author was talking about Warmists. Everything made sense until suddenly the dawn arose. I was on the other side of the mirror.
The repeating “teh” classic online typo was particularly and annoyingly a real clue I think. I don’t know whether to laugh or cry…. Probably both.
Mycroft> …peer review process is working, despite what we’ve seen in the Climategate files
It has some problems; sometimes poor papers get through; but in general it works well. Recently just the prospect of peer review seems to have been enough for “Dr” Roy Spencer to not dare submit his junk. The thing you call “Climategate” shows, insofar as it shows anything on the subject, the process working well. You’ve been sold a variety of pups in that arena, of course.
>Mycroft says:> 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
All your “facts” are wrong (e.g. warming, sea ice, the sea level one is so bizarre I’ve no idea what you’re on about), but these are most obviously wrong. If you’re going to inhabit the WUWT consensual reality there isn’t much hope for you.
Dennis Cox says> Bill Illis who said: “Wikipedia had the potential… People like Connelly turned it into an untrustworthy source.” W.M. Connelly said: “You need evidence for that. And no, recycled inaccurate WUWT posts aren’t good enough.” Here’s one fresh piece of evidence that Wikipedia is no longer a trustworthy source. On the YDIH talk page…
Err, so what is supposed to be the problem there? There was an edit war, which I wasn’t in, and the page got protected, as usually happens in such cases, and now people are having a discussion of what should be on the page. If that is the best evidence you’ve got that I’m Totally Evil you’ve got nothing. If you think you can improve the page, or help resolve the problem, do feel free to contribute there. Of course simply sniping from the sidelines is so much easier.
>Bill Illis says:> wmconnolley says:> You need evidence for that. >Ironic don’t you think
More empty words, but still no evidence.
Connelley does what he is paid to do. Whoever is paying him to come here to attempt to score points must have withdrawn their funding. I imagine when they saw how stupid Connelley looked, they decided to stop paying him.
More empty words, but still no evidence.
==============
There will come a time, when a wordsmith will make you eat your words.
So poor William has failed at a government job, failed at public office, failed at real climate. And has failed at blogging having to raise the profile of his site by coming here and drawing attention to himself.
And his scientific career, well what can we say, maybe only that there is a pattern developing……..?
And he obviously held a long suppressed desire to work with radios for a living.
Oh and William, Dr Spencer is a far better scientist than you will ever be, probably the reason he is still employed and getting grants and why you…..well are you.
I suppose we should say the science goes on without him.
W.M. Connolley said:
I apologize Mr. Connelly. It is noted that your own comments in that conversation were some of the only sane ones on the YDIH talk page. I did not mean to imply otherwise.
But the specific challenge you gave was to show evidence that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source. And the fact remains that when someone tried to edit a page to reflect an unbiased and truthful representation of the science, using the latest peer reviewed reference, they were attacked and chased off Wikipedia with the most vitriolic of ad hominem because it didn’t jibe with some self styled skeptic personal interpretation of the “consensus”.
Bottom line: all of the honest to goodness experts on the subject who really were qualified to write an accurate, and unbiased article about all of the science that’s been done in the past five years, and with all references included from both sides of the debate, in the order they were published, and where they fit into the debate were chased off, and discouraged from making any further contribution to the Wikipedia project at all.
With the result that the unqualified opinions of someone who is only described as being smarter than the editor who wrote it are given by default a higher level of reliable reference on that Wikipedia page than honest to PhD, peer reviewed science.
And the fact that any editor could get away with such a thing is why Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source.
Just saying..
If you cite Wikipedia in any scientific/engineering paper.. you get that paper thrown back at you.
ie. the scientific/engineering community does not support Wikipedia as a reliable source for information.
but Connelley does…..
just saying !!
connolloy said:
“lClimategate” shows, insofar as it shows anything on the subject, the (peer review) process working well. ”
not delusional much. bald faced lying a lot.
DAMN what a terrific site, educational, entertaining (still laughing over Mac The Knife), full of resilient, intelligent & witty bloggers. Just can’t stay away!!
wmconnolley says:
April 21, 2012 at 11:33 am
Problem is, William, the Earth is not cooperating with your CO2 meme. Never has, never will.
Check and checkmate.
Lefties invent the bloviating falsehoods
of their ever-excoriating rants
by simply describing themselves, accurately.
They must keep plenty of mirrors around.