As WUWT closes in on a million comments…
…I thought this is worth reading at The Lukewarmer’s way run by Tom Fuller:
Maybe Michael Tobis might finally be persuaded to approve Mr. Fuller’s comment, now in moderation for 3 days.
The Worst Thing About Censorship
h/t to Skiphil
Over the last 20 years the IPCC has persuaded Government’s to part with upwards of £100m in a vain attempt to identify the human signal of Global Warming and they have failed. The war for sanity being waged against them is in the main being done by people on the internet.
Thanks to the “Information Highway” in general and WUWT in particular, we have access to information and scientists otherwise denied us by the msm.
As stated on Bishop Hill a few weeks ago it is the blogosphere that is destroying AGW….people who are extremely successful in their own field apply the same principles, request scientific research papers, mull them over, study the fine print and pronounce them to be flawed and unnaceptable.
Thanks for everything Athony….keep up the good work.
Since the study of climate is a multidisciplinary field the critism of specialists in related fields is both appropriate and necessary. The rampant misuse of statistical methods being a prime example.
Over the years I have been corrected quite a number of times by fellow commenters at this site, and it usually is done in a polite, helpful, and often humorous manner. I wind up better educated. Some urban myth (or rural, or suburban,) which I didn’t even know I held as a truth is pointed out, and I become less ignorant. In other words, this site gives you the sensation of uplift.
Compare that to how you feel after commenting on an Alarmist site. There you quite often are either told to STFU or spattered by slung mud (or worse,) or you are simply “disappeared.” One doesn’t depart with a sensation of uplift.
I now only occasionally visit Alarmist sites, mostly out of morbid fascination. I also do it because I was brought up to see both sides of an issue, even when one side is obviously riddled with errors.
One item on Alarmist sites that always intrigues me is a “How To Reply To Skeptics” feature that incarnates in many places. It often contains links to refuted and debunked papers. I think they should be re-titled, “How Not To Think For Yourself.” However it is worthwhile to glance over these prepackaged replies, because you then recognize you have heard them before when talking with certain Alarmists. Then, though they have their reply ready for you, you have your re-reply ready for them.
It is also really fun to say, “Oh, you studied that Responses-To-Skeptics thing over at the Skeptical Science site, didn’t you?” I don’t know why this should make Alarmists look nervous and guilty, but it does.
Also, when you see a one sided story on sites like Yahoo where comments are allowed don`t be afraid to remind readers that they can go to WUWT to get the truth about global warming.
Tucci78 & John F. Hultquist:
That was supposed to be funny because I knew full well that Mr Hultquist meant a different word spelled with the same four letters but with the middle two reversed.
January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
Mk Urbo asks:
Is this response valid ???
__________________________
There have been many fine responses to your question. I would add that the response to you by "Al" at Breitbart.com is a great example of lying by omission and also say that logical fallacies are often employed by propagandists, like Al, to bend the truth.
Facts are not truth. Facts are merely facets of the diamond of truth.
If someone installs a new rain gauge in their back yard and upon first use declares “I just measured the greatest rainfall ever recorded at this location”, would you be inclined to build an ark?
Here’s a great link to descriptions of logical fallacies:
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/index.html
Anthony. Will there be a prize for the millionth comment?
Also, have you examined the Norwegian study announced here: http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918
Doxastic commitment makes a fine razor for practitioners of alternative realities.
All apologies for the formatting mistake in immediately previous post… if mod could correct…
[Done Mod.]
iskoob said “Wouldn’t you feel the urge to tear ten shades of hell out of anyone who was as in-your-face offensive to you as we routinely are to them, every time we decline their generous and reasonable cult invitations?”
I don’t think that characterization is universal. There are lots of people posting at the catastrophe blogs who believe that lukewarmers are just one argument away from belief in proactive action based on a CO2 / atmospheric commons. They also are fully aware of Tom Fullers argument that he expresses in the link above which is that problems like a few degrees of change in the global average temperature are easy to sort out especially compared to problems like totalitarian regimes or their admirers and imitators in the nominally democratic world.
While they correctly point out that there is no market incentive or large scale technology to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere (should that be needed), they fail to point out the vast number of astoundingly difficult problems solved by technology without market incentives (albeit many coming from government-funded basic research). The cult that they offer is in one word: hopelessness. Thus it is not the least bit persuasive to anyone with a modicum of knowledge and optimism for the future. They know that we know that. They must continually censor optimistic data or results and promote the “evidence” for pessimism and oversell it many times over. That is not easy without occasionally lashing out, but lashing out is not universal or even very prevalent. Mostly they strike me as saddened that I won’t join them.
One of the reasons I’m a skeptic is that in the early days when the climate wars had just started, I was curious about the subject so RealClimate is where I started with no real preconceptions of which side was *right* or not. Well after posting (mostly lurking) there for a week, I noticed quite a bit of censorship and lots of righteous indignation. Then I found ClimateAudit following most of the original Hockey Stick destruction by reading that site.
Since credentials are a part of this current discourse, lay readers of WUWT need to be clear about something – “Climatology” is not a “science”. Nor is ecology, psychology, epizootiology (a personal favourite of mine, for academic reasons ;), scientology or epistemology. “-ologies” are blended disciplines that encompass a wide range of scientific specializations. To be called a climatologist, or any other “-ologist” is to speak only to a widely diverse but related catalog of subject matter with which one may have some specific, and some generalized expertise. Michael Mann is no more, or less, a climatologist, than I, as a biologist, am. Like “Environmental Science” degrees, Climatology degrees and titles, are a priori constructs of generalized knowledge, with no particular or specific expertise. The expertise comes from in-depth exposure and experience in a science, physics and chemistry, primarily. Climatologists, per se can’t speak to the outcomes of climatology – that is for the expertise in the other “-ologies” to ascertain.
Therefore, referencing someone’s credentials by calling them a “climatologist” is a reference to authority, not to the fact of the breadth, or lack of it, of their expertise in the subject. It’s a strawman argument. – don’t fall for it .
Quote above: “The Science was Settled in 1997. Was then, is now and forever shall be. Amen”
I disagree. The catastrophists will eagerly embrace any new catastrophic theory without any backward glance at their own theories which preceded it and contradict it. One case in point is the theory that Arctic amplification would lead to increased east/west temperature gradients and a stronger polar jet. The stronger polar jet would enhance lower latitude warming leading to warmer results in climate models. That theory was prevalent up to around 2005.
The new theory is that decreased north/south temperatures gradients are leading to a weaker polar jet with deeper meridional incursions which will “cause” superstorms like Sandy. Like all such myopic theories it has theoretical appeal. But fundamentally it is a pretty clear example of mixing up cause and effect. The meridional flow is caused by weather (primarily driven by solar factors) and the persistent meridional flows are what cause the average decreased gradient along with decreased sea ice in places like the Barents Sea.
..and received this recant by Al:
And Michael Mann has degrees in physics and geology but no degree in “climatology”.
(I’m sad to report Mr. Mann is a geologist, but he’s not honest like most other geologists I know–being one myself, mind you.)
So this “Al” person is misrepresenting the whole credentials issue, unless he automatically considers geologists to be akin to climatologists. And most geologists I know haven’t been hoodwinked by this CAGW garbage–they’re too honest to be bought whereas Michael Mann is a notable and notorious exception, a traitor to geologists everywhere.
Agree with “Imdying” above. Its ironic, but the fact is as that AGW is found not be happening no one will be interested in climate anymore. This means that ALL climate related sites will probably vanish in the next 10 years (expect weather sites). WUWT and other skeptic/denier sites rely on the crazy AGW or warmista sites keeping up the lies, adjustments and vitriol LOL
The guy guilty of setting of the scare is non other than the astronomer / physicist Dr. James Hansen. Then [there is] the physics / geologist Dr. Michael Mann. Need I go on???
Doh! I meant
Then there’s….
Aren’t Judith Curry, John Christie, Roy Spencer, Richard Lindzen and Bob Carter decently-respected climate scientists? That’s just the first ones off the top of my head. Doesn’t Judith Curry’s own trajectory, with the fall from grace, expulsion from the inner circle because of her willingness to countenance skepticism etc, enough on its own to address this whole assertion that non-climate scientists are the ones who question climate science? And then crunch grant numbers, connect the dots, identify the gravy train and voila. You don’t even need a conspiracy for The Team to operate; THIS model would predict what we see even if only on a level of the unconscious in each separate climate science ‘worker.’ No alarm = no gig. Or far fewer of them anyway. Not to mention that the average climate scientist’s sex appeal went from zero to hero level once they started pressing the panic button.
Pardon the lengthy post but I’ve been the victim of Gavin Schmidt’s worst censoring offenses.
Connolley showed up over there trying to equate the brazen censorship at RC and others with Anthony’s lengthy struggle to deal with his behavior.
http://thelukewarmersway.wordpress.com/2013/01/26/how-activists-try-to-shape-the-climate-conversation/
“wmconnolley | January 27, 2013 at 6:22 am | You’re lying. You’ve censored entire posts, and all their associated comments.
Somehow you don’t find space to mention that. WUWT routinely bans people it finds inconvenient.
(http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/).
And I don’t censor comments (depending somewhat on your definitions).
As for AW “always been a gentleman” – don’t make us laugh. He’s polite to his fawning admirers, certainly.”
But Connolley’s Stoat link directs one to a WUWT webcitation which clearly displays the length Watts went to before unwelcoming Connolley.
In stark contrast Gavin Schmidt et al have in fact (frequently) blatantly banned people in thread midstream for simply bringing up some mild challenge. Worse yet Gavin has edited posts to change their meaning, blocked follow up and allowed his minions to ridicule the blocked
poster by falsely casting them as having ran away confused and defeated.
IMO Anthony had been far too patient with the likes of Connolley but made it clear there is no comparison between WUWT moderating and the real censors of debate.
Romm, Schmidt and company are the low life offenders of the worst kind and Connolley’s disinformation is more proof he has earned deletion, omission and prohibition.
It’s all here:
http://www.webcitation.org/67MNOBx7u
The best excerpts:
REPLY: Hey Connolley, read the first paragraph before you say “not one”. I’m really growing weary of your condescension. Since you think we are all “stupid”, as you stated publicly, why not go back to your Stoat blog and rant there. I don’t disagree with your explanation, but saying “not one of the “skeptics” here had the slightest idea what the effect was” is a condescending assumption on your part, and is dead wrong. – Anthony
REPLY: This is just another case of the “Connolley is superior and we are all stupid” mindset he holds. Apparently he missed my introduction about frost mitigation when he lumped me and everyone into “you’ve all missed it”. What a plonker of a comment. – Anthony
Luther Wu says:
April 30, 2012 at 7:59 am
Connelly is here?
William, whatever happened with you taking your toys and running home… never to return?
[Moderator’s Note: I don’t believe he ever said that. Please keep the Connolley bashing to a minimum and engage him with substance. -REP]
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 8:59 am
> [Moderator’s Note: I don’t believe he ever said that. Please keep the Connolley bashing to a minimum and engage him with substance. -REP]
You mean stuff like “What a plonker of a comment.”? You’ll need to check in with the organ grinder, I think 🙂
[Reply: After that “organ grinder” comment, I would be surprised if in future the moderator goes out of his way to defend Mr Connolley. ~dbs, mod.]
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 12:47 pm
> Ric Werme says:… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Urban_heat_island#Causes …I forgot to ask about one of your recent edit there…
Indeed, you didn’t formally ask a question at all. But I think the question you meant to ask was: “WMC, so you made the article better, unlike RW who has never helped at all; but why didn’t you make it perfect?” Which is self-answering really.
REPLY: And the answer is… after the black marks you’ve given Wikipedia for your arrogant behavior there, many people don’t want to participate any more due to the bullying that you and a few others display there on the climate issue. The fact is that with many (but not all) climate articles, there aren’t stable references from one day to the next because there is so much tinkering going on. I think I speak for many in saying that we’d feel the climate articles would be more trustworthy if you weren’t involved. -Anthony
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 1:07 pm
Anthony> many people don’t want to participate any more
What do you mean, “any more”? You never have; and I doubt any of the folks here have. You’d rather sit on the sidelines carping, and inventing excuses for not making things better.
> due to the bullying that you and a few others display there on the climate issue.
Excuses, excuses.
> The fact is that with many (but not all) climate articles, there aren’t stable references from one day to the next because there is so much tinkering going on.
You’re making that up. Care to prove me wrong? Then find some examples. vague generalities don’t cut it.
REPLY: I’ve never contributed? Really, you should learn to research before making such challenges. I submitted the original page on the Climate Reference Network to Wikipedia in April 2008 after my invited visit to NCDC. I actually did it from my hotel room in Asheville because no page existed on it and I thought there should be one after meeting with NCDC staff (who I was impressed with BTW for that project division). So I took the description from NCDC and posted it along with the appropriate title and cites. It was then promptly deleted by one of the pseudonym named climate bullies you cavort with. My crime was using my own name….because well, we just can’t have that awful Watts person submitting to Wikipedia. Only the anointed get to touch the holy Wiki climate reference book it seems, mere unclean mortals like myself get their contributions deleted wholesale. So I don’t bother anymore. I know others that have been turned off by the bullying as well.
Ah, the famous WMC signature line “You’re making that up.”, now used on almost any blog entry where you are challenged. Just look at any talk page and note the change history for articles on climate for Wikipedia and it is easy to see how much change goes on from day to day. There’s a lot of tinkering. Though from your world view it seems you don’t believe so. A few examples of what the climate bullies of Wikipedia have had happen to them:
Another prominent Wikipedia editor has been climate topic banned – Kim Dabelstein
William Connolley, now “climate topic banned” at Wikipedia
Wikipedia climate revisionism by William Connolley continues
More on Wikipedia and Connolley – he’s been canned as a Wiki administrator
And of course there’s this one which laid it all bare:
Wikibullies at work. The National Post exposes broad trust issues over Wikipedia climate information
Of course since you’ve never taken any responsibility for your behavior, I doubt you’ll do so now. You’ll just act like Mike Mann does and say its everyone else’s problem but yours.
Look, we don’t like each other, and I doubt we ever will. You think I’m stupid (along with everyone else here) and have said so publicly, I think you are a condescending bully. By that premise, why would we bother to even try anymore at Wikipedia (to make it better – your words) when you claim we are too stupid to contribute anything? So let’s make it simple, let’s not waste each other’s time here anymore. You have Stoat, I have WUWT. Your comments really aren’t welcome here because you’ve been so disruptive that the threads become mostly about you, rather than the topic. So, I suggest you stick to Stoat, because you aren’t winning any converts here with your style. – Anthony
wmconnolley says:
April 30, 2012 at 2:30 pm
[…] > Look, we don’t like each other, and I doubt we ever will. You think I’m stupid (along with everyone else here)
No, not really. “Unthinking” would be closer.
> So let’s make it simple, let’s not waste each other’s time here anymore. You have Stoat, I have WUWT. Your comments really aren’t welcome here…
I’m not here to be liked. I’m here to help educate your people who (from the comments in this thread, I think you cannot but agree) are in need of help. so if you’re formally banning me, you need to actually say so (but then you can forget all about the “no censorship” claims).
REPLY: And there you go, making stuff up. Do you see “formally banning” (your words) anywhere? How about a citation? I suggest that your presence here is a huge waste of everyone’s time, because due to your baggage, and your particular style of condescension, you are not well received. Further, you can’t even fess up to your own posts on Stoat, much less your failings on Wikipedia where you were in fact demoted.. You write a Stoat post about how stupid we are, citing Policy Lass and now to save face it’s “unthinking”. Mr. Connolley, your actions here (and elsewhere) personify the main reason climate science is failing in its message, and therefore I suggest your time is wasted. Though if you want to continue to waste time, be my guest. However, as before, you’ll get an extra level of moderation.
Here’s the Wiki history page for “global warming”http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Global_warming&action=history
Seems pretty “day to day” revised to me:
(cur | prev) 14:52, 28 April 2012 Nigelj (talk | contribs) . . (146,643 bytes) (-8) . . (rm unnecessary quotes from ‘dangerous’ x 2, ‘La Niña year’, and ‘Keeling Curve’, the first per talk page)
(cur | prev) 05:55, 28 April 2012 William M. Connolley (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-959) . . (not sure this can’t-survive-35-oc matters)
(cur | prev) 01:34, 28 April 2012 Saedon (talk | contribs) . . (147,610 bytes) (+210) . . (Reverted 1 edit by NewsAndEventsGuy (talk): La Page is a published expert with a master’s in atmospheric science and as such meets blog exception criteria per WP:SPS ([[…)
(cur | prev) 00:59, 28 April 2012 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) . . (147,400 bytes) (-210) . . (→Expected social system effects: WP:BLOG)
(cur | prev) 20:53, 26 April 2012 TheThomas (talk | contribs) . . (147,610 bytes) (-17) . . (→See also: There were two coppies of the link to Terraforming, both were spelled incorrectly.)
(cur | prev) 20:49, 26 April 2012 CaribDigita (talk | contribs) . . (147,627 bytes) (+18) . . (→See also: +Teraforming which is diliberate warming of a planet. (or altering the atmosphere in some way.))
(cur | prev) 20:49, 26 April 2012 CaribDigita (talk | contribs) . . (147,609 bytes) (+18) . . (→See also: +Teraforming which is diliberate warming of a planet. (or altering the atmosphere in some way.))
(cur | prev) 18:22, 26 April 2012 Nigelj (talk | contribs) . . (147,591 bytes) (-4) . . (remove unnecessary quotes from the word ‘dangerous’ both times. These are not used in the source, and both times the phrase is attributed to the source.http://unfccc.int/essential_background/convention/background/items/1353.php)
(cur | prev) 03:23, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (147,595 bytes) (+265) . . (→Adaptation)
(cur | prev) 03:18, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (147,330 bytes) (+25) . . (→Expected social system effects)
(cur | prev) 03:15, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (147,305 bytes) (+654) . . (→Expected social system effects)
(cur | prev) 02:45, 26 April 2012 KimDabelsteinPetersen (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-157) . . (Reverted to revision 489118328 by Mikenorton: rv per WP:SUMMARY and WP:Manual of Style/Lead Section. using TW)
(cur | prev) 02:42, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,808 bytes) (+8) . . (→Introduction)
(cur | prev) 02:34, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,800 bytes) (+2) . . (→Introduction: “this works better”?)
(cur | prev) 02:13, 26 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,798 bytes) (+147)
(cur | prev) 07:06, 25 April 2012 Mikenorton (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-99) . . (rv – please discuss on the talk page)
(cur | prev) 03:19, 25 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,750 bytes) (+19)
(cur | prev) 03:17, 25 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,731 bytes) (+61)
(cur | prev) 03:11, 25 April 2012 Narssarssuaq (talk | contribs) . . (146,670 bytes) (+19)
(cur | prev) 05:38, 19 April 2012 Nicehumor (talk | contribs) . . (146,651 bytes) (-1,975) . . (See talk page. No reason geoengineering should get a separate section.)
(cur | prev) 19:17, 18 April 2012 Martarius (talk | contribs) . . (148,626 bytes) (0) . . (-us)
(cur | prev) 13:54, 17 April 2012 NewsAndEventsGuy (talk | contribs) . . (148,626 bytes) (+6) . . (Undid revision 487834044 by Joeytanc (talk) rv vandalism)
(cur | prev) 13:53, 17 April 2012 Joeytanc (talk | contribs) . . (148,620 bytes) (-6) . . (→Observed temperature changes)
(cur | prev) 00:59, 17 April 2012 TjBot (talk | contribs) m . . (148,626 bytes) (+30) . . (r2.7.2) (Robot: Adding ilo:Panagpúdot ti lubong)
(cur | prev) 04:23, 16 April 2012 Beyond My Ken (talk | contribs) . . (148,596 bytes) (+37)
(cur | prev) 12:08, 13 April 2012 Nicehumor (talk | contribs) . . (148,559 bytes) (+2,457) . . (A major social system effect may not be a significant natural system effect and vice versa. Since they are a little different it may be better to have separate sections.)
(cur | prev) 12:37, 11 April 2012 Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs) m . . (146,102 bytes) (-8) . . (→Observed temperature changes: Sraight quotes per MOS:PUNCT, replaced: “ → ” (4) using AWB (8060))
(cur | prev) 14:37, 9 April 2012 Rjwilmsi (talk | contribs) m . . (146,110 bytes) (+42) . . (→Particulates and soot: Journal cites:, added 2 PMIDs, added 1 PMC, using AWB (8051))
(cur | prev) 00:47, 8 April 2012 Wavelength (talk | contribs) . . (146,068 bytes) (+3) . . (→Etymology: [¶1 of 2] “it” —> “which”)
(cur | prev) 22:35, 4 April 2012 Teapeat (talk | contribs) m . . (146,065 bytes) (-7) . . (per WP:MOS, articles are about the topic, not the term for the topic)
(cur | prev) 06:05, 4 April 2012 Stephan Schulz (talk | contribs) . . (146,072 bytes) (-2,157) . . (Undid revision 485461502 by Nw68868 (talk) Sorry, but no. Original research, no reliable sources, and plain wrong. See talk if you need to discuss this.)
(cur | prev) 05:55, 4 April 2012 Nw68868 (talk | contribs) . . (148,229 bytes) (+2,157)
(cur | prev) 19:33, 3 April 2012 Nathan Johnson (talk | contribs) . . (146,072 bytes) (-10) . . (→Initial causes of temperature changes (external forcings): 1958-2009 is not in any way “long-term”. besides, it’s quantified a few words later.)
(cur | prev) 14:22, 2 April 2012 Rhlozier (talk | contribs) . . (146,082 bytes) (+11) . . (→Feedback)
(cur | prev) 13:38, 2 April 2012 Rhlozier (talk | contribs) . . (146,071 bytes) (-11) . . (→Feedback)
(cur | prev) 13:33, 2 April 2012 Rhlozier (talk | contribs) . . (146,082 bytes) (+22) . . (→Feedback)
(cur | prev) 10:24, 2 April 2012 H3llBot (talk | contribs) . . (146,060 bytes) (+324) . . (BOT: Added Wayback archive url for dead citation link, Tagged citation with {{dead link}}. Queries and error reports)
P.S.Linking to other web pages in your name – deleted. Choose Stoat for your name link, or leave it blank, you are not Grumbine.
P.P.S. For a real eye opener, see this Wikipedia page about Connolley and what they think about him and what actions have been taken
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#Climate_change:_discretionary_sanctions
But I’m sure he’ll insist that I’ve “made it up”. – Anthony
wayne says:
April 30, 2012 at 6:26 pm
wmc: “Don’t try to teach your grandmother to suck eggs, you wet-behind-the-ears puppy.”
Anthony, Wikipedia, as loose some of it’s information is, will not even have William M. Connolley spewing his bad science information laced with insults…. so why is he here? For enlightenment to see how bad AGW badness can get? To have yourself and a multiple of readers and commenters, now included me, insulted right and left because William M. Connolley thinks he is knowledgeable in science and no one else here is? Seems you’ve got a hard decision to make.
William M. Connolley, I gave you your chance in my last comment to be civil and you refused it, insulting again. I’m not going to sit here and play YOUR game. Mods— please play me some leeway in the near future with this jerk.
wmconnolley says:
May 1, 2012 at 1:19 am
[…..] In this case it looks like AW may have erred. Wiki wins again!
REPLY: Actually we both erred, but you won’t admit your error.
1. Mr. Connolley erred in claiming I’ve never contributed to Wikipedia.
[ >What do you mean, “any more”? You never have; and I doubt any of the folks here have. You’d rather sit on the sidelines carping, and inventing excuses for not making things better.]
To paraphease his favorite line, he “made that up”.
2. I erred in not checking again after getting the “speedy deletion” notice, because it caused me to be disgusted with the entire Wikipedia process. Why participate if one person’s opinion can trigger a deletion? Given the behavior problems there, I didn’t bother to even contest it. Why waste my time with anonymous cowards with an agenda?
I think this admonishment from Wikipedia sums up your behavior there quite well, as well as my (and others) reticence for active participation:
William M. Connolley previously sanctioned and desysopped
8.1) In the Abd-William M. Connolley arbitration case (July–September 2009), William M. Connolley was found to have misused his admin tools while involved. As a result, he lost administrator permissions, and was admonished and prohibited from interacting with User:Abd. Prior to that, he was sanctioned in Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute (2005, revert parole – which was later overturned by the Committee here) and Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Geogre-William M. Connolley (2008, restricted from administrative actions relating to Giano II). He was also the subject of RFC’s regarding his conduct: RfC 1 (2005) and RfC 2 (2008). The 2008 RFC was closed as improperly certified.
Passed 6 to 0 with 2 abstentions, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic
8.2) William M. Connolley has been uncivil and antagonistic to editors within the topic area, and toward administrators enforcing the community probation. (Selection of representative examples:[6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16] [17][18][19] [20] )
This uncivil and antagonistic behaviour has included refactoring of talk page comments by other users,(examples:[21][22][23] ) to the point that he was formally prohibited from doing so. In the notice advising him that a consensus of 7 administrators had prohibited his refactoring of talk page posts, he inserted commentary within the post of the administrator leaving the notice on his talk page.[24]] For this action, he was blocked for 48 hours; had the block extended to 4 days with talk page editing disabled due to continuing insertions into the posts of other users on his talk page; had his block reset to the original conditions; then was blocked indefinitely with talk page editing disabled when he again inserted comments into the posts of others on his talk page.[25] After extensive discussion at Administrator noticeboard/Incidents, the interpretation of consensus was that the Climate Change general sanctions did not extend to the actions of editors on their own talk pages, and the block was lifted.
Passed 8 to 0, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
William M. Connolley’s edits to biographies of living persons
8.5) William M. Connolley has focused a substantial portion of his editing in the Climate change topic area on biographical articles about living persons who hold views opposed to his own with respect to the reality and significance of anthropogenic global warming, in a fashion suggesting that he does not always approach such articles with an appropriately neutral and disinterested point of view.
Passed 7 to 1, 14:10, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
So, after viewing what you are attempting to do with your own blog and interactions here, careful personal consideration, and discussions with other moderators about your behavior at WUWT, it has been decided that like Wikipedia, after 367 Connolley comments and responses, you have been dis-invited from further commentary here. The reason is that you have summarily and regularly violated WUWT policy. While on one hand you have made some valid points, on the other, your behavior here (with follow up taunting on your blog) is serially mendacious, disruptive, dismissive, insulting, and condescending, and as I’ve pointed out the threads Mr. Connolley visits get hijacked by his interaction, making them about him and his taunts. In essence, as you’ve demonstrated on Wikipedia, your participation here is not in good faith either.
To quote WOPR: “The only winning move is not to play.” This is how I feel about Wikipedia and your participation there, and after weighing all the factors, and your participation here. We won’t be playing Mr. Connelley’s war games here anymore. – Anthony Watts
First of all congratulations to Anthony and the team for running an interesting and knowledgable website! Is there a prize for the person that submits the one millionth comment; how about a snow-shovel?
The impression I get from the warmists is that when they make some prediction about climate, they are trying to convince themselves as much as everyone else!
Climatologists or climastrologists?
Tucci78 says:
January 27, 2013 at 3:40 am
… Hardly. The malfeasances of government thugs – elected and appointed – provide an effectively endless resource for the community of online critics attentive to error, willful stupidity, and predatory connivances….
The problem for those in the profession of political speech… is that once someone becomes knowledgeable… that individual cannot un-know the fact, and will henceforth always treat their pronouncements as carcinogenic bilge.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Colorfully put but very true. Once you figure out you are being lied to by politicians and the media you will never trust either source again. It is the main reason I register as an Independent and if I doubt or can stand both candidates I then try to replace the big hog with the little piggy figuring he can not do quite as much damage.
Limiting damage seems to be the best we can hope for since we seem to have the choice between fascist/corporatism or totalitarian in present day governments. Both of course are run by the same set of thugs.
Mk Urbo says:
January 26, 2013 at 9:01 pm
==============================
Wiki changes daily and as a source its questionable at best.
AS for the science. its been shredded here many times.. I agree with the others on this that its total garbage.
@Bill H
I’ll second your Wiki comment. I fought the editing on that site for years with help from WUWT members to no avail. I did manage to get banned by William Connolley for a year or so, until Wiki purged him for bias editing and overreach.
Remember Tim Flannery “Australian of The year” what a joke!
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-28/qld-flooding-alert-moves-south/4486666
He promised eternal droughts in Queensland which led to the Queensland government NOT releasing water from ivenhoe damm..
http://www.abc.net.au/landline/content/2006/s1844398.htm
Climate Commissioner Tim Flannery in 2007:
“Flannery predicted cities such as Brisbane would never again have dam-filling rains, as global warming had caused “a 20 per cent decrease in rainfall in some areas” and made the soil too hot, “so even the rain that falls isn’t actually going to fill our dams and river systems”
This man is indirectly responsible for millions of dollars in property losses and dozen of lost lives and should be fired from any job related to structural changes in Australia and is nomination withdrawn forthwith
Martyn Jones says: @ur momisugly January 27, 2013 at 7:47 am
…..have you examined the Norwegian study announced here: http://www.forskningsradet.no/en/Newsarticle/Global_warming_less_extreme_than_feared/1253983344535/p1177315753918
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
It is this thread: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/01/25/yet-another-study-shows-lower-climate-sensitivity/