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.
Connolly did to wikipedia what Lenny (of mice and men) did to bunny’s.
Please read bunnies (distracted by kids, good excuse, eh?)
gnomish says:
April 21, 2012 at 6:33 pm
Actually, gnomish, what you describe (my bold) is indeed why connolloy thinks it’s working well and why he freely admits it.
And that’s the biggest rebuke one can level at this bloke; he self-incriminates.
Wasn’t it Mencken who once wrote that intellectuals are people who’ve been educated beyond their intelligence? He must have been thinking in particular of PhD. Sociologists.
I still think Confucious said it best: Argue with a fool and there are two fools arguing.
wmconnolley says:
April 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm
WMConnolley, would you say you are smarter than this guy? ;
http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
mpaul says> Connelley does what he is paid to do
I’m a software engineer. I’m paid for writing software (and, to be open, I get a negligible amount for my my blog, but the pay-per-time-expended for that is low enough that I’d be better off flipping burgers, if I was doing ti for money, which I’m not). Believe it or not, I do this for the love of knowledge and the desire to help others.
> u.k.(us) says: WMC> More empty words, but still no evidence.
> There will come a time…
Yeah yeah, and pigs will fly. Come on, have you really got nothing at all to say?
> Andy says: And his scientific career, well what can we say
I suspect that you can say nothing of any value. If you want to read my explanation, you’ll find it via this, from which I’d quote: “much of the main areas of climate science have now become much clearer than when I began to be interested; the obstacles to progress are now very obviously political not scientific.” That is still true; WUWT is a reflection of the political obstacles, if you like.
Dennis Cox say> 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.
Thanks, although you’re not quite there yet.
> But the specific challenge you gave was to show evidence that Wikipedia is not a trustworthy source.
You could read it like that, in which case I’d have to give a more nuanced answer. I’ll do that in a moment. But given the context, I think the challenge was really to show that I, personally, had damaged wikipedia – that is something that, for all the bluster and rhetoric on this site, people have failed to do. If I’m as terrible as you lot seem to think, it should be pretty easy to do.
> 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”.
OK, now we’re onto the more nuanced stuff. First of all: your comments about vitriolic ad-homs is well over the top. Compared to the junk that gets thrown at me in the comments here, that discussion was mild. But anyway: The question is, “is the Younger Dryas impact hypothesis (a) totally discredited (as the page currently says), (b) implausuble (as the briefer summary at YD#Causes says) or truely brilliant (as “CometHunter” would have us believe)?”. I’d weakly go for (b), but I don’t really know. And the problem is that the science on this appears to be in flux; there is a recent PNAS paper in support. So what wikipedia should do in this case is unclear. Unlike, say, Global Warming where the large issues are clear.
AndyG55> Just saying.. If you cite Wikipedia in any scientific/engineering paper.. you get that paper thrown back at you.
How would you know? But scientific papers have different standards from blogs. Wikipedia is an encyclopaedia, an aggregate, and so is appropriate for general discussions. Scientific papers generally need references to the primary literature, which is different. But whenever someone on a blog needs a ref to some general topic, they use wikipedia – WUWT certainly does. Oddly enough, yo don’t criticise “your side” when they do that. And, yet again, you can find no errors – you’re just on generalities. Wikipedia is by no means perfect – I’ve certainly criticised it very strongly – but you lot don’t seem to be smart enough to find its actual as opposed to imaginary flaws.
wikeroy> WMConnolley, would you say you are smarter than this guy? http://www.climatechangefacts.info/ClimateChangeDocuments/NilsAxelMornerinterview.pdf
Morner believes in dowsing, and appears to believe that sea level isn’t rising. Your pet rock is smarter than that – at least it isn’t making any errors.
Kev-in-Uk says:
April 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm
“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, …..”
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/20/on-the-plus-side-theres-no-reason-for-william-m-connolley-to-comment-here-anymore/#comment-962984
Thanks Kev for the post. You put it much better then I could have done.
Oh poor William, he labours under the presumption that he is very clever and decides to tell us what to think. So clever indeed he no longer gets grants, is no longer publishing and went off to repair radios. This of course is because climate science is now clearer, thanks to the efforts of our noble green crusader. One has to ask, why given our brave soldiers efforts why distinguished scientists like Prof Pielke Sr or Prof Lindzen even bother to get up in the morning. Has the news of our resident troll geniuses work passed them by? Of course the fearsome fighter Connelly is not interested in the political side of climate science as he informed us, whilst standing for election as a green party candidate.
Now to anyone with an understanding of modern science, that career trajectory tells you an awful lot. Why Dr Spencer seems to be flying high in comparison.
WUWT is in no way a ‘political obstacle’ unless you consider telling the truth to be a political obstacle, maybe you do, you lefties tend to dislike truth.
wmconnolley says:
April 21, 2012 at 4:04 pm
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.
Arctic Sea Ice. Ya know, funny how Grant doesn’t use up to date area in the link above.
This is reality. http://stevengoddard.wordpress.com/2012/04/21/arctic-ice-area-approaching-abnormally-high-range/
2. Warming. All I can say is what warming? We have been flat with a negative bias since 1998. Almost to the new magical number of 17 years.
3. Sea Level. The rate of rise in sea level has been going down.
I know the above three items are breaking news for Mr. Connolley.
As far as Mr. Connolley posting on this site, it is a great thing. Not many sites allow free and open discussion. WUWT does and is to be commended for such.
Camburn and Mycroft are doing their best to prove Connolley and Policy Lass correct;
sea level is falling = decreased rate of rise.
Oh dear.
Camburn says> Arctic Sea Ice.
Don’t be silly. All the attention is on the summer min; no-one cares greatly about variation in April. Though as I already linked to the trend is downwards in all months. Still: if you believe that the summer extent this year will “bounce back”: care to bet (with real money) whether it’ll be back in the “grey zone” on that pic come September?
2> We have been flat with a negative bias since 1998.
Twaddle. Even if we use your cherry-picked 1998, the trend is upwards. Or we could use UAH. C’mon man, get a clue.
Michael says:> sea level is falling = decreased rate of rise. Oh dear.
Indeed yes. I don’t believe the decreased rate of rise either, but failing to distinguish “falling” from “decreased rate of rise” is a politicians error.
On the off-chance that the one or two here really did want to ask the questions they claimed, I wrote you a post for you to ask in -W]
Michael says:
April 22, 2012 at 7:13 am
All I see is obfuscation on WC’s part. That is what he is paid to do.
“Believe it or not, I do this for the love of knowledge and the desire to help others.”
I am decidedly in the “or not” category.
Regarding the repeatedly measured deceleration in sea level rise, Billy C says:
“I don’t believe the decreased rate of rise either…”
Total cognitive dissonance. When empirical facts conflict with assumptions, those afflicted with cognitive dissonance simply reject the facts, and resume the belief in their falsified assumptions. Orwell’s “doublethink” is the only thing that keeps their heads from exploding.
. . .
David Ball: add me to the “or not” category.
@Kev-in-Uk says:
April 21, 2012 at 1:01 pm
Well said. (You’ve already been seconded, so I’ll add a third.)
Bob Tisdale says:
“Policy Lass? Why should anyone be concerned about the opinion of someone calling herself Policy Lass?”
Maybe because, she is one of the group believing in, or at least promoting AGW, and unfortunately, actually setting global policy.
This is the most frustrating aspect of being aware of the lack of legitimate science in the AGW ‘camp’, that they are achieving ruination of our civilization. Their base is built on sand, yet they flourish.
Smokey actually raises an important point here about empirical “facts”, e.g. measurement. When new empirical measurements contradict basic theory, it is a good idea to remeasure more carefully. Excellent examples include the recent are neutrinos faster than light mess, or somewhat ago, the decreasing temperature trend in the UAH MSU temperature extrapolations (the Ts come from a calculation of brightness temperature) which turned out to be an error of not accounting for satellite altitude changes.
If you want a one line difference between scientists and engineers there it is.
There are highly respected encyclopedia online. It may take a few seconds extra time to find them. It is time well spent. Single reference sources are suspect anyway.
I think it was Mark Twain who said “Golf is a good walk ruined”. It seems that Wikipedia is a good idea ruined. It is sad because so many good people have spent so much time to make it a good idea realized.
Ken, why don’t you present us ONE scientific paper from the self-proclaimed skeptics “camp” as you call it which shows AGW theory to be false. Just ONE will do, so we have some science to discuss rather than your unshakable pre-conceived belief systems.
This is the most hilarious aspect of being aware of the lack of legitimate science in the self-proclaimed skeptics ‘camp’, that they have no scientific base at all, their evidence is cherry-picked, their propaganda is loud, and their beliefs remain unshaken.
Rob Dekker:
“AGW theory”? There is no such thing. Here on the internet’s Best Science site, we like to use accurate scientific terms. Here, this will help.
AGW is a conjecture; just the first step in the discovery of scientific truth. But it is only a conjecture, because it is not testable or falsifiable. If it were testable and falsifiable it would become a scientific hypothesis – but still not a “theory”. To be a theory, it must have at least one non-trivial datum point, and it must be able to make consistent, accurate predictions. As we can see, AGW cannot do that. The planet is not heating up due to human emissions, as has been widely predicted by the climate alarmist crowd.
So the AGW conjecture seems to be falsified. That is not a “belief”, as your comment hopefully posits. That is an empirical fact. And it is not “cherry picked”; the fact is that as [harmless, beneficial] CO2 rises, the planet’s temperature refuses to follow. Thus, the rise in CO2 is not causing global warming.
You make a valiant effort to try and support a failed conjecture. But it is time to accept reality: the demonization of “carbon” has failed. We are all made of carbon. We are not demons. Carbon [as in CO2] is good, not bad. More CO2 is better for the biosphere. It is just a minor trace gas, and a little more is beneficial, not harmful.
Once you understand that, the whole AGW scare becomes a risible fiction, promoted only by those who financially benefit from it, and the mindless lemmings who follow their leaders’ instructions.
@WMC
so i was wrong on 1 of the 5 points i posted to you,strange how you did not come back on points
4 and 5 the missing hotspot and the models gettting further away from real world data observations.
As for your quote of “consensual reality” would that be the same consensus that inhabits climate science/scientists
I unlike you will clearly hold my hand up to any mistakes i make, you can not.you were also were far to willing to alter and fabricate your version on WIKI.
WMC should = weapon of mass censor ship
Wow, they can not force people to submit and accept that their religion is teh One True Faith, so they get pissy and run away. Typical leftard “thinking”.
There are a lot of things I’m ignorant about. I know that. That’s why I surf the Web, and visit dozens of different blogs virtually every day (being retired, I have plenty of time). I’ve visited dozens of sites on “Global Warming/Climate Change/whatever”. This blog is the one that provides me with KNOWLEDGE, usually in a way even I can understand. RealClimate (and most of the other warmist blogs) are nothing but echo chambers, and worthless for the accumulation of true knowledge.
Mr Connolly/Policy Lass — You are not “brilliant”, you do not add substance, you do not enlighten or inform. You are, in a word, nothing but a nuisance. I ignore you. That’s the only appropriate action to take with people like you.
> mycroft says> so i was wrong on 1 of the 5 points i posted to you,strange how you did not come back on points 4 and 5 the missing hotspot and the models gettting further away from real world data observations.
If you’re going to spam random errors you can’t expect me to address them all in detail: like I said, those were “most obviously wrong.”
For point 5, I’m afraid I’ve no idea what you’re talking about – please don’t assume that the real world is aware of all your faux-skeptic memes. Supply links; don’t be lazy.
For point 4 – I recognise your meme, but its wrong. Explaining it all would be complex (and I don’t see why I should bother; you just ref’d your meme unthinkingly); instead I’ll just point you at http://www.skepticalscience.com/Dispelling-two-myths-about-the-tropospheric-hot-spot.html
> I unlike you will clearly hold my hand up to any mistakes i make, you can not.
As far as I know, I haven’t made any mistakes that are relevant to this discussion. If you want to whinge about wiki you’ll need to provide details (diffs are best); vague generalities or refs to inaccurate WUWT posts don’t cut it.
Mike Weatherford > This blog is the one that provides me with KNOWLEDGE
Ah, you’re looking for the TRUTH. But how will you know when you find it? You’re not competent to evaluate any of the science, so how do you know what is valid or not? Do you trust WUWT because it panders to your prejudices?
> Mr Connolly… I ignore you
A self-refuting statement. But do feel free to make it true in future.
REPLY: As a British alarmist yourself, I’d like to welcome you to comment on this article Mr. Connolley: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/23/breaking-james-lovelock-back-down-on-climate-alarm/