RealClimate Co-Founder Exposes His Inability to Grasp Complex Subjects

And most regulars will recall William Connolley. Connolley’s likely best known for his hijinks as a former editor at Wikipedia. (See the WattsUpWithThat posts here, here, here, here, here, here here….and here.) But Connolley is also a former climate modeler with the British Antarctic Survey…plus a co-founder of, and former contributor to, the blog RealClimate, where he authored or co-authored a grand total of 14 blog posts from December, 2004 to March, 2008. Connolley now blogs at ScienceBlogs/Stoat.

WattsUpWithThat regulars will remember “Sou”, a.k.a. Miriam O’Brien. As Anthony Watts notes in his post My Blog Spawn:

Proprietor:Sou from Bundangawoolarangeera” aka Miriam O’Brien of Mt. Beauty, VC, Australia

Some of Miriam’s skills: being a “a sixties-something woman with an interest in climate science“, sniping at WUWT, snark, Twitter snark, photography, business consulting, being on a board of directors.

Anthony continued:

Given her daily rants, she has now qualified for “Internet stalker” levels of infatuation and invective. Assigned to the permanent troll bin.

How do those two bloggers form the basis for an article?

More background: Connolley was the first troll to appear on the thread of my post I’m Retiring from Full-Time Climate Change Blogging. See his January 3, 2014 at 3:11 pm comment. But that’s not the subject of this post. This post is about Connolley’s first link in his blog post, one that serves as his reference for my work on the processes and aftereffects of El Niño and La Niña events—a body of work that includes more than 150 well-illustrated, data-based blog posts about El Niño and La Niña processes and one book solely about ENSO. Connolley writes. [I’ve removed his hyperlink attached to my name so that readers don’t get ahead of me]:

I hasten to add that RP Sr is not speaking of me, no, he is talking of renowned blogger Bob Tisdale.

Where would you have expected the hyperlink to lead? My blog? Maybe WattsUpWithThat? Maybe the exchange I had last year at SkepticalScience about the long-term effects of ENSO?

Give up? The hyperlink was to a post by Miriam O’Brien from HotWhopper. (I’m glad I hadn’t been drinking coffee when I clicked on that link.)

As a reference for his understanding of my work, Connolley linked Miriam O’Brien’s post Bob Tisdale is Perennially Puzzled about ENSO [Miriam hyperlinks to archives, not the original blog posts, so I’ve done the same here]. Miriam’s post is her response to my post titled SkepticalScience Still Misunderstands or Misrepresents the El Niño-Southern Oscillation (ENSO). (The WattsUpWithThat cross post is here.) In that post, I provided graphs of a number of datasets broken down into logical subsets that contradicted the SkepticalScience representation of ENSO, and I challenged SkepticalScience to provide links to climate model-based, peer-reviewed papers that explained why those variables for specific parts of the globe responded as they did to El Niño and La Niña events.

Of course, Miriam O’Brien did not address the content of my post. She did not discuss the datasets I presented, as I had presented them. And Miriam quoted me out of context—nothing surprising there. Miriam could have saved herself a lot of time by simply noting that she agreed with Nuccitelli’s post and disagreed with mine–but she didn’t. Miriam O’Brien wasted her time creating a couple of illustrations so that she could restate Dana Nuccitelli’s misunderstandings and misinformation.

Miriam O’Brien fancies herself an expert on just about every climate-related subject. Yet she is only capable of using the Monty Python contradiction approach to argument, which is why I find her blog so amusing…and, at the same time, I find her blogging style pitiable because she doesn’t realize she’s become an embodiment of a Python caricature.

CLOSING

It’s quite telling that William Connolley, a co-founder of RealClimate, used Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper post as a reference for his knowledge of ENSO. It indicates his understandings of the complex coupled ocean-atmosphere processes and aftereffects of El Niño and La Niña events are as limited as Miriam’s. And if Miriam O’Brien serves as one of his scientific or technical experts, it also suggests Connolley’s arguments about human-induced global warming have grown as laughable as hers.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
235 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
January 11, 2014 11:13 am

I must confess that I also have problems with ‘complex’ subjects. The deal with those is to try to strip away complexity [hoping that some essential thing did not get stripped off] until the subject becomes simple enough that I can understand it. I.e. to find out what are the important aspects.

Mac the Knife
January 11, 2014 11:14 am

Bob,
If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.
But don’t let light arms fire deter you from the main target!
Do what you do best, Bob: Keep bombing the main target.
Mac

Editor
January 11, 2014 11:23 am

On your blog at http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/im-retiring-from-full-time-climate-change-blogging/#comment-14483 :
> William Connolley says:
> January 3, 2014 at 3:11 pm
William links to his FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/malaysianhoneybadger
It’s worth one visit.

Admin
January 11, 2014 11:31 am

@ Bob I’ve always thought the Earth’s climate could be far better modeled by an analog circuit than a digital construct. Most of Nature is analog.

January 11, 2014 11:37 am

CLOSING
It’s quite telling that William Connolley, a co-founder of RealClimate, used Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper post as a reference for his knowledge of ENSO. It indicates his understandings of the complex coupled ocean-atmosphere processes and aftereffects of El Niño and La Niña events are as limited as Miriam’s.

Perhaps, as time has passed, he has experienced a gradual reduction in intellectual capability in ‘length, breadth and scope’; no longer capable of elastic expansion to encompass new ideas and learn new concepts owing to a rigorous, enforced, and/or compelled intellectual ‘confinement’ to an ideology which does not allow for a ‘fuller’, more dynamic environment or world …
. . “A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”
. . – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Sad, really. Intellectually handicapped by his own belief system and ‘practice’ thereof.
.

Sweet Old Bob
January 11, 2014 11:37 am

Snark…Whoppers…Models…GIGO…
Will they ever realise how bad they look? Nah,kennel blindness.
Keep up the great work Bob!

jorgekafkazar
January 11, 2014 11:37 am

lsvalgaard says: “I must confess that I also have problems with ‘complex’ subjects. The [way] I deal with those is to try to strip away complexity [hoping that some essential thing did not get stripped off] until the subject becomes simple enough that I can understand it. I.e. to find out what are the important aspects.”
Thanks, Leif. Still a tricky process–some factors aren’t easily “strippable.” Some scientists resort to a false analogy, ignoring all the complexities and hoping that will carry the day. Models, on the other hand, often boil down to just a computational false analogy, with myriad opportunities for coding errors. But your method works in the long run, through testing and iteration.

January 11, 2014 11:39 am

Operations/housekeeping note: 2nd try on post.

CLOSING
It’s quite telling that W i lliam C o nnolley, a co-founder of RealClimate, used M iriam O ’ B rien’s Ho t W hopper post as a reference for his knowledge of ENSO. It indicates his understandings of the complex coupled ocean-atmosphere processes and aftereffects of El Niño and La Niña events are as limited as M i riam’s.

Perhaps, as time has passed, he has experienced a gradual reduction in intellectual capability in ‘length, breadth and scope’; no longer capable of elastic expansion to encompass new ideas and learn new concepts owing to a rigorous, enforced, and/or compelled intellectual ‘confinement’ to an ideology which does not allow for a ‘fuller’, more dynamic environment or world …
. . “A mind that is stretched by a new experience can never go back to its old dimensions.”
. . – Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr.
Sad, really. Intellectually handicapped by his own belief system and ‘practice’ thereof.
.

January 11, 2014 11:39 am

Bob Tisdale says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:23 am
Then you’ll appreciate my stripped-down description of ENSO
I did , indeed.

Barry Cullen
January 11, 2014 11:45 am

AW – I think nature at our scale is nearly 100% analog. Tiny things like time and thus distance, red shift, electron “orbitals”, et al are quantized.

Mario Lento
January 11, 2014 11:46 am

Bob Tisdale says “Then you’ll appreciate my stripped-down description of ENSO:
ENSO acts as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, where the La Niña phase acts as the recharge phase and El Niño acts as the discharge phase.”
+++++++++
And the ENSO process has shown over the latter half of the 20th century that the discharge has been a net positive as reflected by the global temperature anomalies. It will be interesting to see if this process reverses on the net output. That is, will El Niños be weaker, with less energy being charged during La Niña events.
I look forward to seeing more of your work over the rest of this decade.

Mario Lento
January 11, 2014 11:48 am

lsvalgaard says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:13 am
I must confess that I also have problems with ‘complex’ subjects…
+++++++++++
It’s humbling to us to see you make such a claim. It strengthens your unwavering positions!

DonS
January 11, 2014 11:55 am

Thanks, Bob. I’ve been wanting the elevator version of ENSO for a long time. Now, where’s the same for climate sensitivity?

January 11, 2014 11:56 am

Then you’ll appreciate my stripped-down description of ENSO:
ENSO acts as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, where the La Niña phase acts as the recharge phase and El Niño acts as the discharge phase.

Bob, I read something very close to that a long time ago and it was probably from you. Very good definition.
The entire weather machine that is Earth’s climate is sunlight-fueled and moderated greatly by the planet having so much water. CO2 means nothing in the greater scheme of things, it is solar output and that is reacted to by all the H2O. We are “Water World”.
Enjoyed the post very much by the way.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
January 11, 2014 11:59 am

Upon posting a question to connolley on another site, concerning his, errrr, ‘constructive criticisms’ of people who posted non-AGW climate articles to Wiki, I got a response which suggested memory problems (‘ I did no such thing’). So I have to wonder: did he just forget which link he was linking to which article, in regards to Bob?

John F. Hultquist
January 11, 2014 12:01 pm

Several years ago here on WUWT someone had a link to one of William’s rants. I took that path and regretted it. This time, I’ll take a different route. You have told me enough. Thanks.

January 11, 2014 12:13 pm

> If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.
You people really aren’t thinking.

Admin
January 11, 2014 12:21 pm

As demonstrated above, the problem with Mr. Connolley’s ability to communicate is condescension. He wears it like a body glove.

January 11, 2014 12:26 pm

Ric Werme says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:23 am
William links to his FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/malaysianhoneybadger
It’s worth one visit.
___________________________________________________________________________
Worth one VERY short visit.

M Courtney
January 11, 2014 12:27 pm

Was that the real William Connolley?
Surely an educated man could put up a better defence than that?
Can anyone confirm that we don’t have an imposter trying to humiliate William Connolley?

January 11, 2014 12:28 pm

Bob, you’ve done an excellent job of simplifying the complex for me. I’m not sure I’d worry too much about the snarky types.

Rud Istvan
January 11, 2014 12:30 pm

When a debating opponent is in the process of self destructing as here (Connelly was kicked out of Wikepedia editorship yet denied that fact) it suffices to sit back, relax, and enjoy the spectacle.
Appreciate all your work on ocean cycles. BTW, chaotic systems have strange attractors in N-1 Poincare space. ENSO appears to be just that, with two strange attractor lobes, one called La Nina and the other El Niño.

jlkinsella
January 11, 2014 12:31 pm

Anthony Watts says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:31 am
“@ Bob I’ve always thought the Earth’s climate could be far better modeled by an analog circuit than a digital construct. Most of Nature is analog.”
I modeled complex biochemical kinetic reactions with an analog computer available at NIH. Digital computers were not reliable after the large number of iterations necessary. Always wondered why climate modeling was done with digital computers. (By the way, when the data didn’t fit the model; we changed the model.)

January 11, 2014 12:31 pm

> Connelly [sic] was kicked out of Wikepedia editorship yet denied that fact
Errm, since I wasn’t, it wasn’t a fact, so it seems entirely reasonable to deny it.
Perhaps you have your own reality?

David W
January 11, 2014 12:32 pm

Last year the climate change section of the Weatherzone forums was closed down here in Australia. A large part of this was due to the behaviour of a poster “Ceebee” who many of us suspect was Miriam from Hotwhopper.
“Ceebee” certainly shared many of the obnoxious attributes as Miriam and when the section was closed down it was Ceebee straight away boasting on HotWhopper of the achievement.
Time and again it is shown to be patently obvious that those who support CAGW theory have no desire to have the matter debated,

January 11, 2014 12:35 pm

Bob: The Monty Python school of argument is WONDERFUL!
That will be attached as a link to many of my writings in the future.
Shows the thinking (NON?) of various psychotic personalities.
I’ve been to technical meetings, with REAL discussion. Where a moderator would jump in, if anyone got out of line procedurally, and ‘pet theories’, without good data and backing, were identified as such and put off to an ending, “speculation” round. All quite civil, and productive!

January 11, 2014 12:36 pm

ob, you would be a great educator. I can understand the rumpus: wannabe model makers interrogating keyboards are embarrassed by encountering the physical real world of heated wind driven ocean current flows, gravity and geography. Only simpletons masquerading as scientists would ignore those things. I suspect the weather will ultimately ‘do them in’.
Your post with charts was so clear and unarguable. I would like to consider reposting it on my wife’s blog site: revfelicity.org
Thanks
Kevin O’Brien

January 11, 2014 12:37 pm

Bob, apologies.
Now I have your name right.
Kevin.

Mycroft
January 11, 2014 12:39 pm

She really doesn’t like you Anthony [does] she?
“What a dismal excuse for a human being is Anthony Watts.
“to pay for his recent trip to AGU13 San Francisco, without revealing how much money he was given, how it was spent, or the fact that he most probably didn’t have to pay for attending the AGU conference
And Bob calling you an armchair pseudo-scientist? and just wanting to sell your books!!
Looks like some Libellous comments to me?

Jimbo
January 11, 2014 12:41 pm

William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
> If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.
You people really aren’t thinking.

What are you thinking? What is Trenberth thinking?

10 January 2014
Oops…Trenberth Concedes Natural Ocean Cycles Contributed To 1976 – 1998 Warming … CO2 Diminishes As A Factor
…….Trenberth explicitly admits in his new paper that the 1976-1998 warming phase is attributed in part to the positive phase of the PDO (original text):

The picture emerging is one where the positive phase of the PDO from 1976 to 1998 enhanced the surface warming somewhat……..

……..At a Royal Society meeting in 2013, Julia Slingo of the Met office played devil’s advocate and posed the following question to Prof Jochen Marotzke of the German Max Planck Institute of Meteorology,………

“…it’s a great presentation about 15 years being irrelevant, but I think, some of us might say if you look at the Pacific Decadal Oscillation and it’s timescale that it appears to work, it could be 30 years, and therefore I think, you know, we are still not out of the woods yet on this one. … If you do think it’s internal variability, and you say we do think the Pacific Decadal Oscillation is a key component of this, and it’s now in it’s particular phase, but was previously in the opposite phase, could you not therefore explain the accelerated warming of the 80s and 90s as being driven by the other phase of natural variability?”

http://notrickszone.com/2014/01/10/oops-trenberth-concedes-natural-ocean-cycles-contributed-to-1978-1998-warming-after-all-co2-diminishes-as-a-factor/

CEH
January 11, 2014 12:57 pm

Please Anthony go a bit easy on William Connolley, the fact that he replied within 36 min from his name being mentioned in this post tells us he is reading this blog quite often, he might be on a path to enlightenment and that can take some time, so let us be patient.

Mac the Knife
January 11, 2014 1:00 pm

William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
You people really aren’t thinking.
Huh…..Did I just hear another pop gun go off?
William,
Your response does not indicate lack of understanding but simply ad hom attack. As such you ‘fail’ even more completely than this hapless fellow:
http://youtu.be/yR0lWICH3rY

January 11, 2014 1:12 pm

William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
“> If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.
You people really aren’t thinking.”
Looks like William Connolley joined the postings here. Hasn’t said much at all though. Care to defend yourself in detail? You won’t get censored like some other sites might do, this is an open forum. Just don’t use the D word.

charles nelson
January 11, 2014 1:13 pm

William…you’re right over your target!
Love your FB site by the way!

Anthony Zeeman
January 11, 2014 1:18 pm

There is one thing that has never been explained in this or any other climate related or even science related website. What is an average temperature? The term is meaningless which is why the endless arguments. Which is more dangerous; 9 volts or 20,000 volts? A 9 volt battery can kill you if the current can reach your heart. A 20,000 volt static discharge is just a nuisance. The difference is the energy capability of the source.
A 12 volt car battery will start your engine. Two 9 volt batteries in series, even though the combined voltage is 18 volts, will not even activate the starter solenoid. The difference is the energy capacity of the two batteries.
A kilogram of ice at 0 degrees combined with a kilogram of air at 20 degrees will not give an average temperature of 10 degrees since the heat capacity of ice is substantially different than air. Yet the temperature of the frozen Arctic, the Sahara desert and the oceans are averaged together as if the answer is meaningful when in fact it is useless.
There are far more temperature measurement stations based on land then there is in the ocean, even though huge changes in the Earth’s energy balance will result in only small temperature changes in the ocean while small changes in energy will make large temperature changes in air.
Yet, because there are more air temperature readings, these carry disproportionately more weight than the water temperatures in the temperature average.
Without taking into account the heat capacity of the various mediums such as air humidity and pressure at the time of measurement, the temperature measurement is useless in determing the total energy balance of the Earth.
Rather than measuring temperatures, we should be measuring total energy and seeing how this changes with time. This is much more difficult than measuring temperatures, but vastly more useful and relevant.
As it stands now there are heated arguments over how many angels can fit on the head of a pin without knowing what is a pin or an angel.
The ongoing climate argument is best summarized in a short clip from the movie Monty Python and the Holy Grail: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pWS8Mg-JWSg

January 11, 2014 1:28 pm

huh?
this is a post about a comment that links to a post about another post, rather than a still different post. That Connelly is an idiot is intuitively obvious to the most casual observer. But this is a largely substance free post. Zilch about science and more about he said she said he said, I said, they said.

magicjava
January 11, 2014 1:37 pm

William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
You people really aren’t thinking.
————————————–
Pot, meet kettle.

January 11, 2014 2:10 pm

Where ever William Connelly goes, he gets picked on, just like on Tim Worstall’s blog. The only places where he doesn’t is on climate believer sites. Must be something about the quality of intelligence of such site’s readers. 😉

catweazle666
January 11, 2014 2:11 pm

Miriam O’Brien and “Wiki” William Connolly are two of the most amusing trolls bloggers on the whole internet.
A visit to either of their sites invariably gives me a good belly-laugh!

asybot
January 11, 2014 2:12 pm

William links to his FaceBook page at https://www.facebook.com/malaysianhoneybadger
It’s worth one visit.
Short visit , just till I got to the word “disembaccented”, I am sending that one to B. O’Reilly.
___________________________________________________________________________

Gunga Din
January 11, 2014 2:16 pm

Anthony Watts says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:21 pm
As demonstrated above, the problem with Mr. Connolley’s ability to communicate is condescension. He wears it like a body glove.

==================================================================
Apologies to Will Rogers,
Everybody’s ignorant…only on different subjects. But some people are ignorant of that.

Dan Pangburn
January 11, 2014 2:36 pm

Strip off the insignificant factors and the complexity of average global temperature becomes simple.
The cause of the warming, the end of it, and why temperatures are headed down are no longer a mystery.
Curiosity resulted in the discovery of the two primary drivers of average global temperatures that explain the reported measurements since before 1900 with 90% accuracy and credible estimates back to 1610. The science is settled, CO2 is NOT one of them. http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com/

January 11, 2014 2:45 pm

Anthony says of Miriam O’Brien:
“…she has now qualified for ‘Internet stalker’ levels of infatuation and invective. Assigned to the permanent troll bin.”
“Infatuation and invective”, LOL! Miriam is infatuated, all right. Her problem is that her blog has such low traffic that it only shows up on Alexa when she goes on about WUWT.

Henry Galt.
January 11, 2014 2:45 pm

con nolley – in case you missed the other Bob at Bob’s:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/im-retiring-from-full-time-climate-change-blogging/#comment-14495
“You pernicious, sniveling, mendacious, ungracious, cowardly, pencil-necked progressive dimwit. Shall we mention your Wiki escapades?”
Deference to A’s wishes prevents me from adding much to that missive.
You are a nasty piece of work.

January 11, 2014 2:47 pm

I sympathize Bob. The Hot Whoppers website is clearly dedicated to smearing any skeptic with dishonest intellectual drive-by shootings. I was targeted by Sou the Sniper after I posted the essay “Will the Cost of the Climate Wars be the BBC’s Integrity? http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/31/will-the-cost-of-the-climate-wars-be-the-bbcs-integrity/ I demonstrated that the BBC was fear mongering about rising sea levels devastating the coast of Kitvalina’s which is located in the Chukchi Sea. I posted links to the only two tidal gauges near Kitvalina from the Permanent Service for Mean Sea Level. One station was to the south of Kivalina at Nome Alaska on the Bering Sea. The other station was to the north at Prudhoe Bay in the Beaufort Sea. I also show the sea ice was increasing in the winter using the neighboring Bering Sea ice. Instead of respectfully discussing the lack of sea level rise in that regions, or the decade of cooling, or the growing sea ice in the region, “Sou the Disseminator of Disinformation” posted a desperate attack that Jim Steele the climate denier failed geography, suggesting I was trying to misguide people about the location of the island. It is totally amazing to what [great] lengths they will go to spread re-direct public focus from contradictory evidence. Anyone linking to Hot Whoppers is revealing their disregard for the truth, and their willingness to stoop to the gutters in an attempt to suppress honest debate.

M Courtney
January 11, 2014 2:51 pm

dbstealey says at January 11, 2014 at 2:45 pm…
Good point. There needs to be a term for that media-level between established source of general news and an individual’s opinion.
WUWT is there.
Specialist and the primary, accessible internet source for that specialism.

JaneHM
January 11, 2014 2:54 pm

Dr Connolley’s degrees are in mathematics and numerical analysis, not atmospheric physics or earth science physics.

Betapug
January 11, 2014 3:05 pm

Miriam O’Brien? “…mountaineer, environmentalist and feminist, best known for the concept of “man(n)less climbing” …? No, not that one.

January 11, 2014 3:07 pm

Stripping down the earth to its simplest would be saying its a heat pump that receives heat at the equator and dissipates heat at the poles(plasma fountain, coldest temps, Birkeland currents, Aurora), generally speaking.
So if it get colder(heats loss is greater) at the poles then the earths overall temperature will fall… All the stuff in the middle of the system basically controls the weather. The overall temp is controlled by heat input and loss…

January 11, 2014 3:08 pm

William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
“> If you’re not taking flak, you’re not over the target.
“You people really aren’t thinking.”

Connolley, you are a despicable propagandist. You are the antithesis of honest science; a self-serving scoundrel who CENSORS comments simply because you do not agree with them. You are the fly in the Wikipedia ointment. The turd in the Wiki punchbowl.
You don’t have the stones to go toe-to-toe with any credible skeptic, because you know that you would have your nose rubbed in the playground sand. That’s a given, because you know nothing of science. Propaganda is your specialty.
That is what I think. And as you can clearly see, I am thinking.

Doug UK
January 11, 2014 3:11 pm

I do wonder how “history” will judge Connolly.
His actions are those of someone who is quite prepared to leave his moral compass in a dark corner of his mind because – to him- the “cause” is so important, that the niceties of honesty and integrity are of little regard, such is his self justification.
Literally – God help us from individuals whose arrogance lets them believe that their actions are somehow justifiable.

Betapug
January 11, 2014 3:17 pm

This very well connected Miriam O’Brien.
http://miriamobrienconsulting.com/index.htm

RichardLH
January 11, 2014 3:19 pm

Anthony Watts says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:31 am
“@ Bob I’ve always thought the Earth’s climate could be far better modeled by an analog circuit [than] a digital construct. Most of Nature is analog.”
Agree totally
Analogue: Always accurate, never precise.
Digital: Always precise, never accurate.

Bill
January 11, 2014 3:22 pm

At this stage of the game the trolls like Miriam O’Brien and William Connolly are playing the role of resident fool. The joke is on them and they barely have the start of that nagging doubt in the back of their minds. We should keep them around for general amusement as their day of enlightenment will be a hilarious day of shame.

January 11, 2014 3:28 pm

Betapug,
Interesting link. I wonder: what business would hire a “consultant” like Miriam O’Brien? Certainly, no business that knew of her internet ravings.
If Miriam is so knowledgeable, she should start her own business, instead of just giving advice. Then her advice would have the credibility of coming from a real business owner, instead of from an inexperienced “consultant”.

January 11, 2014 3:33 pm

> he replied within 36 min
I get pingbacks. Perhaps you’ve heard of them? Like dis: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/03/retirement-of-a-dr-salesman/#comment-37680
> Hasn’t said much at all though. Care to defend yourself in detail?
Care to attack me in detail? I’m not seeing anything beyond vagueness. The one definite claim made I’ve already refuted. Otters offer nothing.
> You won’t get censored like some other sites might do, this is an open forum.
Officially, I’m banned here. Read all about it: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/ So the claim this is an “open forum” is distinctly dubious. But we’ll see.
> You don’t have the stones to go toe-to-toe with any credible skeptic, because you know that you would have your nose rubbed in the playground sand.
Come on dahling if you think you’re hard enough. You couldn’t cope last time.
> condescension
Talking to you lot its pretty tricky to do anything else.

son of mulder
January 11, 2014 3:42 pm

“JaneHM says:
January 11, 2014 at 2:54 pm
Dr Connolley’s degrees are in mathematics and numerical analysis, not atmospheric physics or earth science physics.”
There is nothing wrong with degrees in mathematics and numerical analysis because they provide an overview context in which the behaviour of physical systems can be modelled, whereas atmospheric physics or earth science physics may be a little lacking in appreciation of the behaviour of chaotic systems and what is reasonable to model.
Then again, degrees in mathematics and numerical analysis do not necessarily endow the holder with a grip on reality.

jaffa
January 11, 2014 3:53 pm

“Connolley, you are a despicable propagandist……………………..”
He’ll be giggling so much at the attention that he’s likely to wet himself.
He should be ignored while his reputation continues to wither away into oblivion and disrepute.
Oops – I hope Mann doesn’t sue me for plagiarism.

AP
January 11, 2014 3:55 pm

Mirriam OBrien – what can I say – she sounds like the stereotype AGW/anti fossil fuel letter writer and activist. I cringe every time I see a grey haired, middle class woman with a cats arse face – you know, the pursed lips like Christine Milne. You just know she has warped views of the world. Probably married without getting to know hubby very well, unhappy for 40 years, feel like she “sacrificed” her career to pop out a couple of kids who dont love her as much as they should. She has always had a comfortable life, because hubby provided well, and in turn she turned a blind eye to hubby’s indiscretions. He might have been a doctor or a corporate type – perhaps even made his money from the oil industry. She’s never really thought about where the raw materials in that european car they drive comes from, or the bitumen on the roads, or the airconditioning at the supermarket or in their home, or how life would be if they didn’t have any of this. But they’ve definately got solar panels on their roof, because they are into “saving the planet”. Never mind the fact that most of their electricity usage doesn’t coincide with their peak production during daylight hours – someone else will take care of that. Her deep seated resentment of their lives drives her to try and destroy others’ happiness and the way of life that allowed hubby to provide for their comfortable standard of living. She secretly hates hubby (or ex hubby) but she has to direct this passion somewhere to prevent herself going more bat shit crazy – the menopause was bad enough on that count. What better way than to attack the very energy sources that hubby used or relied upon to generate their wealth. Those evil fossil fuels. “The establishment”. “They MUST be the source of my unhappiness”, she thinks, conveniently forgetting about her poor decisions earlier in life. They’re sending “our” profits overseas (conveniently forgetting about the billions of dollars “they” sent to our country as an investment) and destroying our environment (conveniently forgetting the facts). “I must do something. Maybe I’ll set up one of those weblog thingies.”

Steve Oregon
January 11, 2014 4:25 pm

The left’s inability to stay focused, use specificity and contribute to the forward advancement of discussion has never been more prominently displayed than it is with anything Climate.
At the core of their defect, and responsible for most of their ailments, is their lacking the ability to recognize or weigh significance.
The misplacing of significance is at the heart of all of their wayward notions.
Every blessed one of them.
Their chronic propensity to react to the petty and waltz by the serious hobbles their judgement in so many ways that it may be a genetic disorder yet to be discovered.
This deficiency, found at every level from the anarchist of Occupy Wall Street to the distinguished professors, is responsible for the bulk of the left’s troubles.
I guess I’ll call it SDD
Significance Deficiency Disorder

January 11, 2014 4:28 pm

Connolley says:
“Officially, I’m banned here. ”
heh. Officially, you’re nuts. ^As we see.^
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Connolley huffs and puffs: “Come on dahling if you think you’re hard enough. You couldn’t cope last time.”
Oh, I’m hard enough. Next to you, cream puff, there’s no comparison. And despite your snivelinbg about some vague coping, you should take your own advice, and post chapter and verse about how I didn’t ‘cope’.
Let’s have that debate! A debate between you and, say, Lord Monckton — the winner of numerous debates against impotent alarmist propagandists like yourself. [I would propose a debate between you and the ultimate Authority: Planet Earth. But Earth has already ruled, and you lost.]
YouTube never forgets. This should be good!
A few ground rules:
Moderator mutually agreeable. Audience chosen completely at random. Venue: Oxford, scene of a previous climate debate.
Winner takes the loser’s place, whether it’s writing articles for WUWT, or moderating Wikipedia comments and articles. Let’s roll the dice!

January 11, 2014 4:32 pm

I think William Connelly’s actions speak for his lack of expertise.

Henry Galt.
January 11, 2014 4:34 pm

Steve Oregon says:
January 11, 2014 at 4:25 pm “””” well said. Problem being: they find breeding partners. conman has a couple of kids – luckily most children grow up and rebel against their … parents.

magicjava
January 11, 2014 4:39 pm

Just a suggestion… you may want to lock this thread. It’s degenerated into a series of personal attacks.

Lawrence Todd
January 11, 2014 4:48 pm

Dr Connolley’s degrees are in mathematics and numerical analysis, not atmospheric physics or earth science physics.”
Oh no! He has a similar background to me 🙁

David
January 11, 2014 4:58 pm

>> Connolley’s likely best known for his hijinks as a former editor at Wikipedia.
Connolley still edits at Wikipedia, with about 1000 edits in 2013. A quick reckoning shows he made about 420 edits to 108 climate related articles or article discussions. To be fair, some of these edits were just reverts of ‘vandalism’, but he clearly still monitors a vast array of climate related wiki material.
Some of his favorite topics last year, with number of edits:
Global warming
Global warming (40)
Global warming controversy (24)
List of scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming (11)
Global warming conspiracy theory (6)
Effects of global warming (3)
Politics of global warming (2)
Climate change
Climate change (7)
Scientific opinion on climate change (23)
Attribution of recent climate change (3)
Public opinion on climate change (1)
Tipping point (climatology) (4)
Abrupt climate change (1)
Runaway climate change (8)
Climate, miscellaneous
Climate sensitivity (24)
Climate engineering (2)
Climate (2)
Climate state (7)
Greenhouse…
Greenhouse effect (15)
Greenhouse gas (10)
Greenhouse and icehouse Earth (9)
Runaway greenhouse effect (2)
Arctic/Antarctic
Arctic sea ice decline (6)
Sea ice (3)
Polar ice packs (1)
Climate of the Arctic (1)
Climate change in the Arctic (2)
Arctic methane release (1)
Clathrate gun hypothesis (2)
Climate of Antarctica (4)
West Antarctic Ice Sheet (1)
Arctic Ocean (1)
IPCC
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (4)
IPCC Second Assessment Report (2)
IPCC Fifth Assessment Report (6)
IPCC list of greenhouse gases (1)
Others of note
Milankovitch cycles (14)
International Climate Science Coalition (17)
Hockey stick controversy (3)
Climatic Research Unit email controversy (3)
And finally
Watts Up With That? (2)

Streetcred
January 11, 2014 5:56 pm

Con nolley reminds me of the kid that just had to try and lick the frozen gate post !

u.k.(us)
January 11, 2014 6:30 pm

I think I’ll just take a deep breath.
Maybe the scribes will do the same ?

Steve from Rockwood
January 11, 2014 6:45 pm

There used to be a time when we actually did something, rather than become masters of Wikipedia.

TomRude
January 11, 2014 6:47 pm

Let’s recognize that Connolley’s merit has been to expose Wikipedia and its main funding for what it is. Thanks to his inquisitive work, the hunted have been able to organize themselves better in order to deliver information that he and his minions won’t be able to suppress.

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 11, 2014 6:56 pm

Zeeman:
I’ve covered that problem a few times. Mostly with a more technical bent. Lately, I think I’ve come up with a way to explain it that anyone can “get”:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2014/01/05/calorie-counting-thermometers/
The basic fallacy of the Global Average Temperature is that it can somehow count the energy gain or loss of the planet. IF that were true, then using an average of your oral and armpit temperatures could tell you if you ate too many calories and were going to gain weight…
(Yes, the Earth is also a self regulating temperature system, like a human body, complete with water driven heat dumping. The analogy holds.)
The much more technical version is here:
http://chiefio.wordpress.com/2011/07/01/intrinsic-extrinsic-intensive-extensive/
And I’ve covered it a couple of other times in earlier forms. From pointing out that this is a large calorimetry experiment where we don’t know the mass, specific heat, latent heat, enthalpy changes, and more; and keep changing the number and location of thermometers (which any Chem major can tell you breaks your calorimetry) to one of my earliest postings about “Mr. McGuire would not approve” where I touched on it while pointing out (less precisely then) that you can not remove systematic error with an average, only random error, so the average can NOT have greater precision than the original measurements, which means at best +/- 1 F degree for all USA and all older UK / British Empire data (which is one heck of a lot of the old data…).
So the point has been presented; but most folks don’t seem to care about it. Even though it means that the Global Average Temperature is at BEST “a polite fiction” devoid of meaning… useful only for propaganda.

asybot
January 11, 2014 6:57 pm

Then you’ll appreciate my stripped-down description of ENSO:
ENSO acts as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, where the La Niña phase acts as the recharge phase and El Niño acts as the discharge phase.
Analogue: Always accurate, never precise.
Digital: Always precise, never accurate.
Thanks to Bob T and AW.
(btw I did go to the “Sage of the Outback’s” ( or should that be the Witch) web site as someone suggested, her site’s a little confusing.there are a few 404’s

E.M.Smith
Editor
January 11, 2014 7:28 pm

You know, watching this thread, a thought wandered by…
Wherever the AGW folks show up, quality leaves; then eventually the bulk of the normal folks leave too. Doesn’t matter if it is the Weather Channel (as the related post points out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/11/directv-to-drop-weather-channel/ ) or Wiki (where the likes of Mr. Con-oily have made it a political swamp of festering bias). As soon as the “organizing communicators” show up with their Agenda; it goes to pot. Then folks leave. (I used to use the Wiki a lot. Then, when I posted an article with a reference to Jevon’s – and that wiki was IMMEDIATELY rewritten to a Politically Correct but technically wrong article, I saw the light. Now it is at best a secondary reference and only on non-climate and non-political things).
The AGW web sites dwindle to low numbers.
Current TV goes to Al Jazerra.
TWC is useless, even for the regular weather.
Wiki gets a very bad black eye for not avoiding politically driven severe bias.
The list goes on.
There ought to be a name for that process. Like with money, where Gresham’s Law says that “Bad money drives out good”. Bad people drive out good. Bad ideology drives off the thinking person. Propaganda drives away the free minded person. PC Ranting drives out thoughtful discussion. Insult drives out discourse. Perhaps Smith’s Law Of Thinking. “Bad ideology drives out good cogitation”?
And the people just move on…
Being a basically polite person, I’ll not join the rant at Mr. Connolley. I don’t want to get my cogitation soiled… IMHO the facts speak for themselves. A person is known by their deeds, and those of Mr. Connolley are there for all to see. Especially the political hack job on wiki. Oh well, it was a nice idea before it was turned into a garbage heap.

charles nelson
January 11, 2014 7:28 pm

Stoat Baiting.
The wonderful thing is that statistically speaking (given the relative size of the WUWT readership compared to his own circles), more people loath the Stoat than love him.
And he keeps letting us KNOW just how much this really really annoys him!
Ah…the pleasures of blood sport.

Mario Lento
January 11, 2014 7:46 pm

E.M.Smith says:
January 11, 2014 at 7:28 pm
++++++++++++
Well stated by quite a gentleman Mr Smith. I generally feel obliged to donate to sources where I derive value or where others derive value that believe is important. When I go to Wikipedia, and they ask for money, I only feel the smallest bit obliged – but it’s as small as the CO2 signal is to AGW – so I will not pony up a red cent to Wikipedia. I generally go to Wiki to see what they say, not as an end-all, but as a point of reference.
I also listen to NPR and AM radio on my way to work so I can be exposed to all sides of stories (instead of listening to music). I’ll never give them a red cent (other than the tax money that was taken from me via the IRS).
Mario

TImothy Sorenson
January 11, 2014 8:11 pm

Wow WC says he has a different reality.
But his own wiki is locked.
His own wiki says:..a 2009 Wikipedia arbitration in which it was concluded that Connolley had used administrator privileges to his own advantage in content disputes, and these privileges were removed.[26]
So ‘editorship’ and ‘admin privileges’ just need to be swapped. Funny how hostile the arrogant are when wrong.

Glenn
January 11, 2014 8:44 pm

William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014
“Officially, I’m banned here.”
So you posted anyway.
“So the claim this is an “open forum” is distinctly dubious.”
Open forum does not imply the absence of rules.
“You people really aren’t thinking.”
Strike three, troll.

Patrick
January 11, 2014 10:06 pm

Miriam O’Brien sniping at WUWT as well as linking to articles by Karoly? Priceless!

January 11, 2014 10:22 pm

William Connolley is the most execrable individual I ever encountered on Internet.
It is sort of an achievement, because there are quite a few execrable individuals out there.

January 11, 2014 10:35 pm

I keep wracking my brain to come up with some simple explanation for such behavior. It seems like childlike behavior, but from those that are obviously adults by age. The thought that keeps coming to mind is “arrested puberty”. The Mann’s, Connolley’s and O’Brien’s of our age seem to have never graduated puberty! Teenagers, still playing the “Knockout Game”.
a.k.a. Politics.
Which brings into focus the difference between smart and clever. Smart, who figured out “landing a man on the moon and returning him safely to the earth”, is walking to the bush latrine at a safari campsite. Clever is waiting in the jungle for Smart to shoot through. Clever then leaps on Smart’s back and rips him/her apart.
Clever wins!
But will Clever ever be Smart enough to get to the moon?

TimC
January 11, 2014 10:49 pm

Our host said @ Bob: “I’ve always thought the Earth’s climate could be far better modeled by an analog circuit than a digital construct. Most of Nature is analog.”
I do agree – but then there are those superb programs (like Aimspice) that can almost exactly simulate circuits such as old (vacuum tube) Leak Amplifiers, feedbacks and all. I had a couple of Leaks some years ago: if you set them up with a signal generator input and oscilloscope to view the output, Aimspice reproduced the output exactly at all audio frequencies…

January 11, 2014 11:18 pm

Mario Lento,
I agree with your comment above. E.M. Smith’s posts are always worth reading.

Mario Lento
January 11, 2014 11:49 pm

Thank you dbstealey.

January 12, 2014 12:05 am

I’m afraid that I’m still not seeing anything substantive I could attempt to rebut, only insults. There’s BT’s original mistake I suppose:
> telling that William Connolley, [used] HotWhopper post as a reference for his knowledge of ENSO
No. I used HW as a ref for BT, not for ENSO.
I could try rebutting an error made on BT’s original post, where it was said:
——-
> *You are a Ph. D. de facto; Einstein’s doctorate from Oxford was “honorary.”
Einstein had an earned doctorate from Zurich: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Academic_career
> B(nT):
Oh come now. You can’t possibly imagine that NSF would fund this stuff, can you?
And as for cowardly: here I am. Under my real name, not hiding as anon.
——-
Alas, that comment was so terrible that it had to be censored at BT’s blog (http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/im-retiring-from-full-time-climate-change-blogging/#comment-14503), making the stuff about cowardliness somewhat ironic. However, the bizarre comparison to Einstein and the failure to realise that Einstein did have an earned doctorate, seemed worth noting. I really can’t account for RP’s suggestion that BT’s stuff should be funded by NSF though.

January 12, 2014 12:15 am

Alexander Feht says:
“William Connolley is the most execrable individual I ever encountered on Internet.”
True dat.
And as we see, Connolley the Coward hides out from the debate challenge @4:28 pm above.
Too bad. Lord Monckton would do an ethical job of moderating the Wikipedia articles on climate. Unlike Connolley.

January 12, 2014 12:23 am

> Connolley the Coward hides out from the debate challenge @4:28 pm above.
I’m here, if M wants to talk. Where’s your man?

January 12, 2014 1:27 am

Perhaps people could tone down the name-calling and ad hominem attacks and get back to issues of climate..Just saying’…..

Greg
January 12, 2014 1:37 am

A Watts says:
@ Bob I’ve always thought the Earth’s climate could be far better modeled by an analog circuit than a digital construct. Most of Nature is analog.
Nice idea, but I don’t think you would be able to make or specify all the physical properties of the components as accurately as you can model them numerically.
If you needed to model something with a resistance, would the stray capacitance or the inductance of the physical component have any meaning to climate or introduce spurious artefacts?

Greg
January 12, 2014 1:47 am

BTW Connely is a failed climate modeller. If you dig out the papers he co-authored they are all about how they _failed_ to get anything close to reproducing the ocean currents in the Southern Ocean that they were working on. He imagines that makes him an “expert” on climate.
After that he failed to get elected as a Green on the local council in Cambridge UK. At the same time he was abusing the processes as a Wikipedia editor to ban contributions from those who did not agree with his politics.
His WP profile page which he frequently used to justify himself as a climate “expert” did not point out that he was a failed ex-expert and currently a political activist seeking to get elected.
More of a weasel than a stoat but I suppose if he called his site weasel it would give the game away.

Greg
January 12, 2014 2:15 am

David says:
>> Con nolley’s likely best known for his hijinks as a former editor at Wikipedia.
Con nolley still edits at Wikipedia, with about 1000 edits in 2013. A quick reckoning shows he made about 420 edits to 108 climate related articles or article discussions. To be fair, some of these edits were just reverts of ‘vandalism’, but he clearly still monitors a vast array of climate related wiki material.
====
Very good point. A lot of people seems to think, oh it’s OK finally he got removed. He did not , he got a _temporary_ removal of his admin rights and a _temporary_ ban from certain climate topics.
What Con nolley calls ‘vandalism’ is anything that may damage the AGW cause. So don’t dismiss those when counting.
The reason it took that long for _anything_ to be done and why nothing is done about the rest of GW zealots patrolling Wikipedia is because James Whale wants it that way. He is complicit.
That is why his “encyclopaedia” is unreliable crap for many topics.
PS. ( “Wiki” is the free software project used, not the encyclopaedia, which is just its most famous user).

Oldseadog
January 12, 2014 2:17 am

Billy Connolly, hilarious comedian.
William Connolly, hilarious …. oh, wait.

January 12, 2014 2:56 am

Talk is cheap. Yes or no?

Jack Savage
January 12, 2014 3:25 am

“The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about.” Oscar Wilde.
Somewhere, a stoat is chuckling.
I do not like to stoop low to personal attacks but in this case I have taken a special course of bending and stretching exercises to enable me to do so.
He is the sociopathic Alberich of the “climate” Internet world. Master of the arrogant ,unsupported, condescension-dripping drive-by , just clever enough to be dangerous. Strange, twisted, driven by forces one hesitates to speculate upon. A low-rent hollow-cheeked masochistic Moriarty.
I wonder sometimes if he even subscribes, in the privacy of his own head, to the validity of the stuff he promotes or whether it is merely a platform to enable him continue with his , at times, deeply distasteful and spiteful contributions.
A bile-filled Rubik’s cube puzzle for the studiers of the incorrigibly damaged, and one which makes you want to wash your hands afterwards. I frequently blench on the reminder that I share a country with him.
He is a one-off, that is for sure. Please do not ban him. I take a guilty pleasure from observing his antics and his sheer startling rudeness is a wonder to behold.

johnmarshall
January 12, 2014 3:32 am

Thanks Bob.
Connolly seems to want a fight without the reality weapons to help him win. Let him fight and sink in his own mire.

richardscourtney
January 12, 2014 3:58 am

William Connolley:
At January 12, 2014 at 12:05 am you say

I’m afraid that I’m still not seeing anything substantive I could attempt to rebut, only insults.

Clearly, you choose to only see that which fits with what you want to assert.
For example, in this thread you have repeatedly claimed that you are “banned” from posting on WUWT. Clearly, anybody with at least two brain cells to rub together can see that your claim disproves itself: if you are banned from posting on WUWT then you cannot post any claim in this WUWT thread.
This is a clear demonstration by you that you live in a view of the world which only exists in your mind. And you are infamous for harming Wicki by using your editing rights to distort information on Wicki so it concurs with your deluded views.
David wrote at January 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm listing your many recent Wicki ‘edits’ by subject. And E.M.Smith wrote in his post at January 11, 2014 at 7:28 pm explaining how editorial distortion on Wicki has trashed that enterprise saying

(I used to use the Wiki a lot. Then, when I posted an article with a reference to Jevon’s – and that wiki was IMMEDIATELY rewritten to a Politically Correct but technically wrong article, I saw the light. Now it is at best a secondary reference and only on non-climate and non-political things).

And when your misbehaviours are pointed out you pretend the points are “only insults”. Your pretence may convince yourself because it is part of your delusion”: it only fools you and not others.
Importantly, your pretence that criticisms of your execrable behaviours are “insults” obtains the well-deserved contempt which you obtain from so many people.
I hope this explanation is helpful to your understanding of your delusional world view so you can start to correct your errors.
Richard

OLD DATA
January 12, 2014 4:00 am

Yes, even our President stated math is “complext.”

richardscourtney
January 12, 2014 4:00 am

OK. I’m moderated again so my post has not appeared. Ho hum. I suppose WC would claim it is personal when it happens to him’
Richard

January 12, 2014 4:42 am

Then you’ll appreciate my stripped-down description of ENSO:
ENSO acts as a chaotic, naturally occurring, sunlight-fueled, recharge-discharge oscillator, where the La Niña phase acts as the recharge phase and El Niño acts as the discharge phase.

Can you model that with a 555? Here is a way it might be done: http://www.creative-science.org.uk/chaotic_leds.html now all you need to do is to get the circuit values right.

January 12, 2014 5:02 am

AP sometime back ranted
“Mirriam OBrien – what can I say – she sounds like the stereotype AGW/anti fossil fuel letter writer and activist. I cringe every time I see a grey haired, middle class woman with a cats arse face – you know, the pursed lips like Christine Milne. You just know she has warped views of the world. Probably married without getting to know hubby very well, unhappy for 40 years, feel like she “sacrificed” her career to pop out a couple of kids who dont love her as much as they should. She has always had a comfortable life, because hubby provided well, and in turn she turned a blind eye to hubby’s indiscretions. He might have been a doctor or a corporate type – perhaps even made his money from the oil industry. She’s never really thought about where the raw materials in that european car they drive comes from, or the bitumen on the roads, or the airconditioning at the supermarket or in their home, or how life would be if they didn’t have any of this. But they’ve definately got solar panels on their roof, because they are into “saving the planet”. Never mind the fact that most of their electricity usage doesn’t coincide with their peak production during daylight hours – someone else will take care of that. Her deep seated resentment of their lives drives her to try and destroy others’ happiness and the way of life that allowed hubby to provide for their comfortable standard of living. She secretly hates hubby (or ex hubby) but she has to direct this passion somewhere to prevent herself going more bat shit crazy – the menopause was bad enough on that count. What better way than to attack the very energy sources that hubby used or relied upon to generate their wealth. Those evil fossil fuels. “The establishment”. “They MUST be the source of my unhappiness”, she thinks, conveniently forgetting about her poor decisions earlier in life. They’re sending “our” profits overseas (conveniently forgetting about the billions of dollars “they” sent to our country as an investment) and destroying our environment (conveniently forgetting the facts). “I must do something. Maybe I’ll set up one of those weblog thingies.””
Who is the fossil here? Welcome to the 1950s.

January 12, 2014 5:25 am

> Talk is cheap
Sure is, and I’m seeing nothing else from you. If M shows up, I’ll be happy to debate with him here.
> a _temporary_ removal of his admin righta _temporary_ removal of his admin rights
No, that was permanent. It was a different case though. I’m still bitter about it.
> Einstein received his doctorate from Zurich in 1905
A fact of which you and JM were previously unaware. I think its rather revealing that you bask in the comparison; anyone with a less inflated ego would have rejected it as clearly inappropriate.
> you have repeatedly claimed that you are “banned” from posting on WUWT
Nope. I said, precisely once,”Officially, I’m banned here. Read all about it: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/ “. I imagine you’re unlikely to follow that link, so permit me to quote our host’s words: “you have been dis-invited from further commentary here”. Don’t take my word for it though: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/#comment-972488
> David wrote at January 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm listing your many recent Wicki ‘edits’ by subject
So he did. As far as I could tell that was factual but also uninteresting.
> I used to use the Wiki a lot. Then, when I posted an article with a reference to Jevon’s – and that wiki was IMMEDIATELY rewritten to a Politically Correct but technically wrong article
Characteristically vague – no indication of which article, or when, and no username – but regardless: what has that got to do with me? You vastly exaggerate my powers – flattering, but unrealistic – if you think I’m responsible for the entirety of wiki.
> I’ll stand by my interpretation that you [HW] as a reference for your understanding of it. Or do you disagree with her?
I disagree with your interpretation; I used that post as a reference for your name, no more. I can’t say I read the HW post in any detail.

Reply to  William Connolley
January 13, 2014 10:52 am

@William Connolley – Re:

A fact of which you and JM were previously unaware. I think its rather revealing that you bask in the comparison; anyone with a less inflated ego would have rejected it as clearly inappropriate.

The fact was discussed by neither. His honorary doctorate from OXFORD was.
If you are what passes for an editor at Wiki, it is apparent why grade school teachers warn their students away. They try to cure ignorance, not instill it.

Mickey Reno
January 12, 2014 5:30 am

Bob, thank you so much for your entire body of work, and for the sensible and kind method of presentation. I hope you’ll return to blogging at times. That some snarky Aussie sheila and some “Real” climate and Wikipedian totalitarians despise you is no surprise to me. They’ve lost their ability to inquire honestly. They’ve become advocates in the sense of legal advocacy. Control and suppression of dissent have long been some of their goals.
I’m always amused when those on their side of the debate are frustrated by the failure of their wannabe totalitarian methods. When the world refuses to obey them (natural and societal), and they can’t quite cop to the fact that reality isn’t supporting their tendentious hypotheses, they’re reduced to talking about “communicating” more effectively. But unfortunately, when “Real” climate scientologists start talking about better communication, they’re NOT signaling an intent to start listening.

RichardLH
January 12, 2014 6:31 am

William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:31 pm
William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 3:33 pm
William Connolley says:
January 12, 2014 at 12:05 am
William Connolley says:
January 12, 2014 at 12:23 am
William Connolley says:
January 12, 2014 at 5:25 am
“Officially, I’m banned here.”
Not banned so much as it would appear from your contributions on this thread at least.

observa
January 12, 2014 6:41 am

Meanwhile Andrew Bolt has some inability to come to grips with the complexity of certain subjects-http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/index.php/heraldsun/comments/chris_turney_now_blames_warming_for_trapping_penguins_in_ice_too/
When the sea ice facts change I defer to the penguins on global warming. What do you do sir?

richardscourtney
January 12, 2014 6:50 am

I’m in moderation again, I see. WC, please understand that this does not mean I am “banned”.
Richard

richardscourtney
January 12, 2014 6:56 am

William Connolley:
I am saddened for you that your post at January 12, 2014 at 5:25 am demonstrates your inability to accept help for your problems.
In my post earlier addressed to you at January 12, 2014 at 3:58 am I wrote

Clearly, you choose to only see that which fits with what you want to assert.
For example, in this thread you have repeatedly claimed that you are “banned” from posting on WUWT. Clearly, anybody with at least two brain cells to rub together can see that your claim disproves itself: if you are banned from posting on WUWT then you cannot post any claim in this WUWT thread.

And I continued saying

This is a clear demonstration by you that you live in a view of the world which only exists in your mind.

Then I followed that with explanation before concluding

I hope this explanation is helpful to your understanding of your delusional world view so you can start to correct your errors.

But your post I am answering again attempts to claim

Officially, I’m banned here.

Read all about it: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2012/05/02/so-long-and-thanks-for-all-the-1/ “. I imagine you’re unlikely to follow that link, so permit me to quote our host’s words: “you have been dis-invited from further commentary here”. Don’t take my word for it though: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/04/30/supreme-irony-wind-farms-can-cause-atmosphereic-warming-finds-a-new-study/#comment-972488.
Nobody needs to “Read all about it” because they can see you are NOT “banned here” when you are posting here to claim you are banned here.
Please take a step back and try to think. Everyone can see it is difficult for you to see anything other than your deluded world view. But your nonsensical assertions are making you a laughing stock which adds to the contempt with which so many people regard you.
Richard

richardscourtney
January 12, 2014 6:57 am

Aaargh! My repost is still wrongly formatted; why? and it is in moderation, too.

Henry Galt.
January 12, 2014 7:17 am

For those, upthread, complaining about the “ad homs, name calling and personal attacks” –
Many years ago I gave up pointing out the inconsistencies, daft ‘projections’ and the blind indoctrination at surrealclimate. Because … wait for it … the “ad homs, name calling and personal attacks”.
This jerkwad con-nearly and his cronies such as dhogaza had that off to a fine art nearly a decade ago.
Now the flailing around and twisting, introducing guesswork that was not even a gleam in their eye back then, is verging on comical. The chance to insult their vicious ignorance and wilful cretinism must be taken wherever it may.
Jack Savage has the creature weighed off.

Otter (ClimateOtter on Twitter)
January 12, 2014 7:19 am

wee willie CONnolley, you really otter stop while you are ahead.
btw, I see you admitted above EXACTLY what I asked you about on the thread over at the Scottish Skeptic. I was right, memory problems.

beng
January 12, 2014 7:20 am

***
lsvalgaard says:
January 11, 2014 at 11:13 am
I must confess that I also have problems with ‘complex’ subjects.
***
Joking? As a mech engineer in a power plant, it took some time to finally visualize rotating magnetic fields in an electric motor stator, inducing a magnetic field in the rotor and driving it.
But visualizing/understanding free-flowing magnetic fields in a CME plasma is just too much for me….

January 12, 2014 8:00 am

E.M.Smith (January 11, 2014 at 7:28 pm) “Wherever the AGW folks show up, quality leaves; then eventually the bulk of the normal folks leave too. Doesn’t matter if it is the Weather Channel (as the related post points out: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/11/directv-to-drop-weather-channel/ ) or Wiki (where the likes of Mr. Con-oily have made it a political swamp of festering bias).”
This thread was never destined to become a resource for those wishing to learn about global warming from El Nino. For that, there are other threads: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/10/an-illustrated-introduction-to-the-basic-processes-that-drive-el-nino-and-la-nina-events/
What is important in this thread is pointing out the ignorance of the people who believe that La Nina and El Nino are opposites (read the thread I linked above), or that La Nina followed by strong El Nino cannot possibly cause secular global warming, only a temporary warming effect that can be “undone” with the next La Nina. Those people simply need to read more widely.
The basic mistake made by most of those folks is failing to recognize the heat losses from meridional flow and concentrated convection among other weather processes. What is striking about that failure is that the climate models that they like the most, the ones with the highest sensitivity, show diffuse convection reaching lower altitudes on average and show reduced meridional flow with the storm track and polar jet both moving poleward.
The simple fact they are missing is that the earth cools by a variety of processes and that the climate models, the ones that have failed for the most part, predict fewer cooling processes. When the Arctic and subarctic warms in winter it means there is a greater area of the earth with warmth to be radiated to space. It depends on how much warming for how long, the averages, not the extremes are what counts
The same people who cling to a simplistic energy balance model contrary to reality (there is no energy balance) are the same people who don’t realize or refuse to accept the fact that the earth warms and cools by various processes that do not balance. The quintessential example is people who believe that extreme cold must be balanced by extreme warmth. That is not true, although there is often more warmth pushed or pulled into the Arctic when cold air surges south.
But that Arctic warmth can often coincide with reduced albedo in areas affected by the cold surge, thus resulting in some temporary global cooling (although most of the global cooling and warming episodes are from tropical heat exchange with the ocean and tropical losses to space).
The bottom line is there is no such thing as “global warming” in the strictest sense, only reductions in global cooling, thanks to manmade CO2, and reductions or increases in global cooling thanks to weather which has a lot of solar modulation. The models, and therefore the model huggers, generally produce more benign weather and reduced cooling from the modest (and beneficial) CO2 warming, thus a negative feedback. When they clamor about “extreme weather” it is obvious that they don’t understand that the increase in global cooling that they are claiming to be real (but generally not in evidence) and claimed to be a result of AGW is offsetting some of the minor and net beneficial AGW that we have had so far.

Caz Jones
January 12, 2014 8:46 am

I am new to this blog and I don’t know the people involved in the story. However, I did take some time to have a look at the blog of Miriam O’Brien and I see she was also banned from another site. She says she reported them to Human Rights. Seriously? A knowledge of history and a sense of perspective is called for.

January 12, 2014 8:50 am

> I don’t believe I’ve had the opportunity to exchange comments with you on other threads
You have as much opportunity as you like. You know where I live: http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/. Anytime you want to talk GW or climate science in general, come on over. If you think you’re hard enough.
> The bottom line is there is no such thing as “global warming” in the strictest sense, only reductions in global cooling,
That’s certainly an exciting new theory. I look forward to you developing it in more rigourous fashion.

Lars P.
January 12, 2014 10:03 am

E.M.Smith says:
January 11, 2014 at 7:28 pm
You know, watching this thread, a thought wandered by…
Wherever the AGW folks show up, quality leaves; then eventually the bulk of the normal folks leave too……
……….
Propaganda drives away the free minded person. PC Ranting drives out thoughtful discussion. Insult drives out discourse. Perhaps Smith’s Law Of Thinking. “Bad ideology drives out good cogitation”?
And the people just move on…
Being a basically polite person, I’ll not join the rant at Mr. Connolley. I don’t want to get my cogitation soiled… IMHO the facts speak for themselves. A person is known by their deeds, and those of Mr. Connolley are there for all to see. Especially the political hack job on wiki. Oh well, it was a nice idea before it was turned into a garbage heap.

E.M.Smith, very pertinent observation, I think you are onto something here.
Yes it is something obvious to us all, nevertheless I did not saw it yet expressed as a law.
And indeed I saw Smith’s Law of thinking: “Bad ideology drives out good cogitation” on and on again. One sees it again and again and again in all those areas infested by marketing political hacks, there have been so many examples being debated here at WUWT, or elsewhere on skeptics sites.

RichardLH
January 12, 2014 10:04 am

William Connolley says:
January 12, 2014 at 8:50 am
“That’s certainly an exciting new theory. I look forward to you developing it in more rigourous fashion.”
Long time ago. Earth was a molten globe of rock.
Present. Earth is a molten globe of rock with a cooler skin on it.
Future. Earth is a molten globe of rock with an even thicker and cooler skin on it.
Fill in as required.

Gunga Din
January 12, 2014 10:42 am

William Connolley, why don’t you just come out and say, “I’m right. You’re wrong. I don’t have to provide evidence of that because it’s enough that I deigned to say it.”

KNR
January 12, 2014 12:17 pm

RealClimate Co-Founder Exposes His Inability, although in truth it hardly needs exposes given even a dead rat knows all about ‘ His Inability’

Caz Jones
January 12, 2014 1:00 pm

Thank you Bob, sorry you have to put up with such people. What do they say about not feeding the trolls……….:-)

Cuthbert Shaw
January 12, 2014 1:17 pm

Bob et al, you are being trolled, having interacted with Mr Connolley on the Wikipedia admin channels a number of times prior to him being de-sysopped, the one thing he doesn’t do is engage or go toe to toe so to speak. You are being had.

Gunga Din
January 12, 2014 1:39 pm

Caz Jones says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:00 pm
Thank you Bob, sorry you have to put up with such people. What do they say about not feeding the trolls……….:-)

===========================================================
Sometimes it’s “fun”. Sometimes it’s a distraction the thrust of more important topics. Here it’s just a bit fun.
What has Con-man said that can be taken seriously?

RichardLH
January 12, 2014 1:42 pm

Cuthbert Shaw says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:17 pm
“You are being had.”
May be, maybe not.

Admin
January 12, 2014 1:55 pm

I note this is a recurring theme with Mr. Connolley

“Anytime you want to talk GW or climate science in general, come on over. If you think you’re hard enough.”.

He’s used the “hard enough” phrase twice on this thread and several times in the past. It’s like a grade school taunt from him, the equivalent of saying “are you chicken?!”. It’s so juvenile. We have a large audience here for him, he just wants to control the conversation by moving it to his place, typically a bully tactic, much like his Wikipedia editing.
One will probably see some snarky and or derogatory revisions to the WUWT Wikipedia page as a result of his interaction here.

Matt G
January 12, 2014 2:08 pm

[trimmed – as dupe text]
Since when is noise solar energy distributed around ocean surface currents from the natural ENSO build up and disperse cycle? It is not noise, it is how the planet moves the build up of too much energy in the tropics to the rest of the world. It is natural thermostat that prevents the tropics warming too much. The reason why during major ice ages the tropics hardly changed and only cooled about 1c.
http://morriscourse.com/elements_of_ecology/images/ocean_currents.jpg
http://www.plantsciences.ucdavis.edu/plantsciences_Faculty/Bloom/CAMEL/Art/CurrentsOcean.jpg
The ocean currents above show how energy from the E equatorial Pacific move west with trade winds and spread into 3 different directions from the W equatorial Pacific. One warm current moves N toward the Arctic, the other moves S towards Antarctica and the main one moves energy towards the Indian ocean which joins surface currents that eventually reach the tip of South Africa and move up the Eastern side of North and South America until reach Europe and finally the Arctic. This is how the planet naturally removes energy from a hot tropical regions preventing it from positive feedback.
Only surface ocean water cant last that long before cooling can it? Yes it can and does because the surface ocean current varies between around 200m and 400m deep.
The diagram below shows how the warming in E equatorial Pacific formed back in 1997.
http://www.cpc.ncep.noaa.gov/products/GODAS/mnth_gif/xz/mnth.anom.xz.temp.0n.1996.04.gif
How can it be noise when it causes a step up roughly half of the original El Nino in global temperature rise. Then stays flat with maybe a very slight cooling trend until the next strong El Nino appears. This shows that global temperatures are only rising when a strong El Nino occurs. When there isn’t one, global temperatures remain generally flat like recent years since the last strong El Nino back in 1997/1998.
http://www.woodfortrees.org/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1982/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1997.5/trend/offset:-0.05/plot/hadcrut3gl/from:1987/to:1996.5/trend/offset:-0.05
The strong El Nino back in the early 1980s would have been larger on global temperatures if it had not been for a major volcanic eruption back then.comment image
William and co don’t seem to grasp natural reality.

Matt G
January 12, 2014 2:14 pm

Sorry, previous post seems to have duplicate, please remove the first section if possible to prevent confusion.

RichardLH
January 12, 2014 2:35 pm

Anthony:
“One will probably see some snarky and or derogatory revisions to the WUWT Wikipedia page as a result of his interaction here.”
Surely not. After all he has the perfect forum here now to explain his ideas in a calm and reasoned fashion. /sarc

Rick
January 12, 2014 2:38 pm

When one bothers to stop and consider William you tend to ascribe to him the modern definition of arrogance: often wrong, but never in doubt.

Gunga Din
January 12, 2014 2:44 pm

Anthony Watts says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:55 pm
I note this is a recurring theme with Mr. Connolley
“Anytime you want to talk GW or climate science in general, come on over. If you think you’re hard enough.”.
He’s used the “hard enough” phrase twice on this thread and several times in the past. It’s like a grade school taunt from him, the equivalent of saying “are you chicken?!”. It’s so juvenile. We have a large audience here for him, he just wants to control the conversation by moving it to his place, typically a bully tactic, much like his Wikipedia editing.
One will probably see some snarky and or derogatory revisions to the WUWT Wikipedia page as a result of his interaction here.

=====================================================================
“Come over here where I can control/delete/edit the debate.”
A “triple-dog-dare” won’t explain why that poor kid’s tongue froze to pole.
Connelly, tell Anthony that you will present evidence for what you believe/perceive/conclude and I suspect he would be more than willing to provide you a “post”. (Provided you don’t regress into “It’s true because I said so mode.”) You know what you did at Wikipedia. You know Anthony doesn’t do that here.

Sisi
January 12, 2014 4:12 pm

“It’s like a grade school taunt from him, the equivalent of saying “are you chicken?!”. It’s so juvenile.”
https://www.google.com/search?client=safari&rls=en&q=%22chicken+little%22+site:wattsupwiththat.com&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8
REPLY: Oh sure, somehow in your mind the story of Chicken Little used as a metaphor is the same as a direct taunt. Too bad that your argument is too week to wash. I’ll forgive you though for the ignorance because English isn’t your primary country of origin language. – Anthony

Sisi
January 12, 2014 4:46 pm

“Oh sure, somehow in your mind the story of Chicken Little used as a metaphor is the same as a direct taunt.”
And yet, when -somewhere in a discussion- someone mentions Chicken Little I have never thought about this person’s metaphoric skills…
To be clear, I don’t like the “If you think you’re hard enough.” quote. But your protestations seem a bit off. You are not impartial to taunts yourself.

Mario Lento
January 12, 2014 4:53 pm

Sisi: Pardon me, I am not trying to taunt you, but that is your screen name after all. Perhaps you should read the full context of what’s happening before you insert yourself. You obviously don’t have a clue about what’s going on.

Sisi
January 12, 2014 4:57 pm

Anthony:
“I’ll forgive you though for the ignorance because English isn’t your primary country of origin language.”
Mario:
“You obviously don’t have a clue about what’s going on.”
Thanks a lot guys! Cheers!

Mario Lento
January 12, 2014 5:06 pm

Sisi says:
January 12, 2014 at 4:57 pm
Anthony:
“I’ll forgive you though for the ignorance because English isn’t your primary country of origin language.”
Mario:
“You obviously don’t have a clue about what’s going on.”
Thanks a lot guys! Cheers!
+++++++++
Sisi: I have even better colloquialisms to save you the time.
I’m rubber your glue
I know you are but what am I
Neener neener…

Mario Lento
January 12, 2014 5:14 pm

richardscourtney says:
January 12, 2014 at 6:57 am
++++++++++
It happens some times, we get moderated. Your posts are truly excellent. I enjoy reading your thoughtful responses to people who need to learn a thing or two –especially when those people are as dishonest con artists.

Sisi
January 12, 2014 5:20 pm

“As demonstrated above, the problem with Mr. Connolley’s ability to communicate is condescension.”
Thanks!

January 12, 2014 5:25 pm

William Connolley says:
“If M shows up, I’ll be happy to debate with him here.”
Ah, but that was not the challenge. Connolley is amusing in his juvenile way, isn’t he?
The specific challenge was:
a) A debate with Lord Monckton, held at
b) Oxford (the site of a previous debate), and
c) There were serious stakes involved
Said stakes were that the loser would give up his Wiki moderating position, or WUWT article writing position, as the case may be, to the debate winner.
The challenge was to be at the Oxford venue, because it would be difficult to game the debate there. And without such worthwhile stakes, Connolley will keep on blathering, with no downside risk.
If someone is not willing to take the risk that their position would be rejected by a neutral jury (but still, a jury inclined to accept Connolley’s catastrophic AGW conjecture), then their motive is politics, not science. Thus, they are being disingenuous.
The disingenuous one comments:
“Anytime you want to talk GW or climate science in general, come on over. If you think you’re hard enough.”.
Aside from Connolley’s juvenile taunt, why should anyone “come on over” to his thinly-trafficked blog, when comments here are being read by thousands? The amusing Mr Connolley is just trolling for traffic to his blog; but I, for one, prefer to have my comments read by more than a small handful of True Believers. I’m sensible like that, and I think others are, too.
Therefore, I can predict that the disingenuous Mr Connolley will never risk his wiki position, simply because he does not believe in what he preaches. That makes him less than honest (readers can decide how much less). But anyone who truly believed in what they are trying to sell to others would man up and roll the dice. That is something the cowardly Connolley will never do… although this is his golden opportunity to prove me wrong.

Sisi
January 12, 2014 5:57 pm

“The amusing Mr Connolley is just trolling for traffic to his blog; but I, for one, prefer to have my comments read by more than a small handful of True Believers. I’m sensible like that, and I think others are, too.”
I read that! I am still giggling! “I’m sensible like that”! Hilarious! Need a new keyboard now.

January 12, 2014 6:09 pm

William Connolley (January 12, 2014 at 8:50 am): “That’s certainly an exciting new theory. I look forward to you developing it in more rigourous fashion.”
No, it is an old theory, been around since the 70’s. Here’s Trenberth from 1994: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00210625 and a more recent paper http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~dennis/Zelinka%26Hartmann_2012.pdf by Zelinka and Hartman: “Anomalous meridional energy fluxes by the climate system perform the analogous role under global warming, diverging energy from regions in which feed- backs amplify the radiative forcing and converging energy into regions in which feedbacks dampen the radiative forcing”
Most papers agree that polar heat flux will increase under global warming, but the critical issue is how much since that will determine whether it is a minor or major negative feedback overall.

Reply to  eric1skeptic
January 13, 2014 12:48 am

> eric1skeptic says:
Ah, I misread you, at least partly. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/12/19/climate-science-is-interesting-and-fun/ applies, I think.
> a very generous woman
Completely deluded would be more accurate. She got Einstein’s doctorate wrong, as did you – which is disrespectful to his memory and his work – and you lapped up the fake comparison.

January 12, 2014 6:19 pm

Here’s an earlier (1980) paper by Lindzen on the topic: http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/prggclhttr.pdf >>Baroclinic eddies can then be viewed as a climatic “voltage” regulator, where the pole-to-equator temperature difference plays the role of “voltage”<<

January 12, 2014 6:33 pm

Sisi says:
“when… someone mentions Chicken Little I have never thought about this person’s metaphoric skills…”
Dear Sisi. Chicken Little is embedded in Western culture. It is a parable, like ‘the boy who cried “Wolf!”‘ Parables are meant to convey a lesson, and in this case the Chicken Little parable teaches us that often what we fear is, in reality, nothing worth getting scared about.
Thus, ‘Chicken Little’ is an excellent parable for the “carbon” scare. There is nothing to be afraid of: in reality, no scientific evidence exists that supports the demonization of CO2 [“carbon” for easily frightened scientific illiterates].
When someone produces measurable, testable evidence of global damage or harm due to the rise in CO2 (from only 3 parts per 10,000, to only 4 parts per 10,000), I will be the first to sit up straight and pay attention.
But note this, and note it well: there is no such evidence of global harm available. And many scientists have been searching frantically for any such evidence for the past several decades. After all that time, and after hundreds of $billions spent on the search for AGW, reasonable people will conclude that there really isn’t any basis for the catastrophic AGW scare; none at all.
Based on those facts, maybe you should re-think your own world view.
Finally, if you don’t believe being ‘sensible’ is spending time writing comments to a small handful of like-minded true believers, when the same effort could reach thousands of readers, then your idea of being ‘sensible’ is far different from mine. In fact, I would label your idea as being borderline crazy.
But glad to give you some mirth, however wacky you may be…

MattS
January 12, 2014 6:47 pm

Mac the Knife says:
January 11, 2014 at 1:00 pm
William Connolley says:
January 11, 2014 at 12:13 pm
You people really aren’t thinking.
Huh…..Did I just hear another pop gun go off?
William,
Your response does not indicate lack of understanding but simply ad hom attack. As such you ‘fail’ even more completely than this hapless fellow:
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Connolley reminds me more of this old joke:
Americans: “Please divert your course 15 degrees to the North to avoid a collision.”
Canadians: “Recommend you divert YOUR course 15 degrees to the South to avoid a collision.”
Americans: “This is the captain of a US Navy ship. I say again, divert YOUR course.”
Canadians: “No, I say again, you divert YOUR course.”
Americans: “THIS IS THE AIRCRAFT CARRIER USS ABRAHAM LINCOLN, THE SECOND LARGEST SHIP IN THE UNITED STATES’ ATLANTIC FLEET. WE ARE ACCOMPANIED BY THREE DESTROYERS, THREE CRUISERS AND NUMEROUS SUPPORT VESSELS. I DEMAND THAT YOU CHANGE YOUR COURSE 15 DEGREES NORTH. THAT’S ONE-FIVE DEGREES NORTH, OR COUNTER MEASURES WILL BE UNDERTAKEN TO ENSURE THE SAFETY OF THIS SHIP.”
Canadians: “This is a lighthouse. Your call.”
Read more at http://www.snopes.com/military/lighthouse.asp#ZKKH1I0Chpzchwo0.99
Conolley of course is the American captain.

Patrick
January 12, 2014 7:13 pm

“Anthony Watts says:
January 12, 2014 at 1:55 pm
I note this is a recurring theme with Mr. Connolley
“If you think you’re hard enough.”.
He’s used the “hard enough” phrase twice on this thread and several times in the past. It’s like a grade school taunt from him, the equivalent of saying “are you chicken?!”. It’s so juvenile.”
It’s not only juvenile, it’s typically infantile British pub “hardman” bullsh*t talk. More like school yard bullyboy than a hardman. Experienced it many times in the past when I used to live in England. A predominantly cowardly way to try to start a fight, usually about nothing (In this case very apt considering his challenge on GW and “climate science”), when they’ve had a few pints along with a bunch of mates to back them up. When challenged, they back down quickly whimpering away back to their pub seat gripping their pint quietly looking back at you mumbling to each other. Pathetic!

darrylb
January 12, 2014 8:34 pm

Bob Tisdale: Thanks for the simple, concise, but elegant ENSO description, I will use it without hesitation to explain—–
Bob Tisdale: How about not quitting, rather just taking an extended vacation!
Anthony et al: Eventually Truth, which is coming in ever increasing bites will eventually set us free. The subsequent topics such as the BBC scandal will, I hope, gradually grow until the momentum eventually cannot be stomped out. Other sites, which I think are terrific, Climate Etc.
Roy Spencer, Climate Audit (I get a headache from learning and digesting statistical methodology every time I read it) and others, as well as climate depot and real science for some general info will eventually prevail. As was indicated, the IPCC and gang are in a bind and no heat below a half mile in the ocean is going to surface to save them.
Like the foolishness of witchcraft , eugenics and more the idea of a significant human cause was an ideology without limits.
It will eventually serve as how not to do science.

January 13, 2014 1:33 am

eric1skeptic says:
“No, it is an old theory, been around since the 70′s.”
Thanks for that. Once again, it is shown that Connolley does not know what he’s talking about.
++++++++++++++++++++++++
Bob Tisdale,
Thanks for being the adult to Connolley’s prepubescent child. Your maturity comes across well. Janice is simply a very nice person [not “completely deluded” as the execrable Connolley writes]. Connolley cannot stand to see anyone complementing you. He is a thoroughly hateful individual. That is his right, I suppose. But in addition, as eric1skeptic makes clear, Connolley is out of his depth regarding the subject of anything related to AGW. No wonder he is terrified of any real debate.
You, OTOH, are one of the true masters, and I have learned a lot from your articles and comments. Your WUWT articles are very much appreciated, as I’ve mentioned a number of times.

RichardLH
January 13, 2014 2:04 am

William Connolley says:
January 13, 2014 at 12:48 am
“She got Einstein’s doctorate wrong, as did you”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Albert_Einstein#Academic_career
On 30 April 1905, Einstein completed his thesis, with Alfred Kleiner, Professor of Experimental Physics, serving as pro-forma advisor. Einstein was awarded a PhD by the University of Zurich.
http://www.einstein-website.de/z_information/honours.html
1919 University of Rostock Honorary doctorate
1921 Princeton University Honorary doctorate
1922 Nobel Foundation, Stockholm Nobel Prize in Physics for the year 1921
1923 University of Madrid Honorary doctorate
1923 Order “Pour le mérite” Admission to the order
1925 Royal Society of London Copley Medal
1926 Royal Astronomical Society Gold Medal
1929 German Physical Society Max-Planck-Medal
1930 ETH (Eidgenoessische Technische Hochschule), Zurich Honorary doctorate
1931 Oxford University Honorary doctorate
1935 Franklin Institute, Philadelphia Benjamin Franklin Medal
1935 Harvard University Honorary doctorate
The Oxford one does appear to be Honorary.

Patrick
January 13, 2014 2:24 am

I guess some people haven’t heard the phrase “Open mouth, change foot.” classic!

January 13, 2014 4:31 am

William Connolley (January 13, 2014 at 12:48 am) “Ah, I misread you, at least partly. http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/12/19/climate-science-is-interesting-and-fun/ applies, I think.”
It does, but the devil is in the details, specifically the quantity of the poleward heat transport and changes in the flux after CO2 warming. Thus the conclusion in your post which is essentially: “so what” (i.e. the process is already described in a textbook) was unwarranted. Unlike on your blog, Willis followed on with more posts on the topic, including this one: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-magnificent-climate-heat-engine/ where he states that the 12 petawatts of poleward heat flux is about 10% of the incident solar energy of 120 petawatts although your very reliable wikipedia website claims 170: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy) Considering the breakdown of incident inside and outside the blue lines in his diagram, the heat engine is running at 70% of capacity (although it can never get to 100%).
But that post combines the clouds and convection portion of the heat engine and as Quondam commented, the linear response is 6W/K and nonlinear (which is a better assumption) is 2.57W/K which means between 0.6 and 1.44 temperature rise per doubling of CO2.

Reply to  eric1skeptic
January 13, 2014 6:00 am

> http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/12/21/the-magnificent-climate-heat-engine/
Ah, you want http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2013/12/22/the-magnificent-disinformation-engine/ for that.
> claims 170: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orders_of_magnitude_(energy)
Wiki says 1.7×1017 J. As you’d hope, wiki sources that statement to “The Earth has a cross section of 1.274×1014 square meters and the solar constant is 1366 watts per square meter.”
Which seems to be correct (earth radius 6,371 km, solar constant now said to be 1361 not 1366, but that’s a far smaller error); WUWT, as you’d expect, doesn’t bother to source its statement and is, predictably, wrong. Score 1 to wiki, 0 to WUWT. I wonder if anyone here will be able to cope with the cognitive dissonance?

Reply to  William Connolley
January 13, 2014 12:36 pm

Linking to yourself again? You do realize you just affirmed the cliche’s flying around here about you stating “because I told you so” as justification for your ignorance.

Patrick
January 13, 2014 4:38 am

Just for the record, Einstein was dyslexic.

January 13, 2014 8:00 am

William Connolley (January 13, 2014 at 6:00 am)
“Ah, you want….”
I don’t see anything listed specifically in your 12/22 post that Willis (allegedly) copied from your 12/19 post. To be convincing your post should list or summarize what Willis wrote on 12/18, what corrections you made on 12/19, how those were reflected in Willis’s 12/21 post.
AFAICS, there is simply a post on your blog one day after each post by Willis which asserts “The shame is that the septics are so keen to find their fantasies that they can’t see the interesting reality” and “…his new discovery has totally destroyed his previous…” along with accusations of plagiarism without any specifics.
It is a thin gruel as evidenced by 4 +/- 0 comments per post, mostly echoes. In contrast Willis gets 100’s of comments, some attacking his belief in heat absorption by CO2 but also many corrective and informative comments. But importantly, Willis and his commenters quantify and you do not.
It appears to me that science progresses on WUWT and stagnates on Stoat. It guess that should not be a surprise since the Stoat blog is defending the legacy, high-sensitivity climate models now shown to be 95% too warm that can not model the heat engine and heat losses we are discussing since they do not model (but rather parameterize) the weather that controls the amount of heat loss both from latent heat transfer and poleward heat transfer. If that is wrong, please correct, but be specific. Using unsupported assertions is not adequate.

Reply to  eric1skeptic
January 13, 2014 8:43 am

I see you’ve decided to ignore the error in the 170/120 value at WUWT. I can’t say I’m surprised.
As to the plagiarism: that’s so obvious I didn’t think I needed to bother explain. But if you’re finding it difficult: WE writes a post that forgets about transport. I blog about that, pointing out the good old “atmospheric heat engine” type analogy. Which WE then suddenly and mysteriously discovers. What a bizarre coincidence. I’m sure you’re entirely happy to give WE the benefit of the doubt.

RichardLH
January 13, 2014 9:42 am

William Connolley says:
January 13, 2014 at 6:00 am
“Wiki says 1.7×1017”
Well when I go to Wiki it says
1.5×1022J total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each day
The Earth has a cross section of 1.274×1014 square meters and the solar constant is 1361 watts per square meter.
So….

RichardLH
January 13, 2014 9:47 am

That means
Calculated: 1.27e14 m^2 * 1370 W/m^2 * 86400 s/day = 1.5e22 J

January 13, 2014 10:24 am

William Connolley (January 13, 2014 at 8:43 am) “I see you’ve decided to ignore the error in the 170/120 value at WUWT. I can’t say I’m surprised.”
It seems to be due to vague wording. As you noted, the wikipedia source says “The Earth has a cross section of 1.274×10^14 square meters and the solar constant is 1361 watts per square meter.” but the table entry says “total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each second” The source is exact, but the table entry is vague: what is “face of the Earth”?
Willis’s post says “the 120 petawatts of solar energy that is constantly being absorbed by the climate system” The difference is the albedo of 0.7 so Willis is correct. Wikipedia is correct too, but not precisely worded. Maybe you can go fix that.
As for plagiarism, he did not copy your words since there were not many to copy in the first place. I doubt he copied your idea either. Science here is about the discovery of principles or testing of theories from the raw data and that’s what Willis was doing in his series of posts. His was quantitative which is a big step forward since it is impossible to determine global warming and cooling without those numbers.

January 13, 2014 10:45 am

> The difference is the albedo of 0.7
OK, I’ll give you and WE that.
> As for plagiarism, he did not copy your words since there were not many to copy in the first place. I doubt he copied your idea either
No-one is suggesting he copied my words. That he copied my repeating of a commonplace idea is obvious.
> Well when I go to Wiki it says 1.5×1022J total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each day
You’ve failed to distinguish energy-per-second (which is what we’re talking about) from energy-per-day.

Bob Kutz
January 13, 2014 11:46 am

Mr. Connolley; I HAVE FIGURED IT OUT!!!
I know why you and the skeptics have such a difficult time agreeing on anything; We live on different planets!!
It’s true!
You live on a circular disc, perpendicular to the solar radiation (Hence 1366W/m^2 for the surface of your planet) vs. 342 W/m^2 (average) over the surface of the sphere the rest of us live on.
Be careful not to fall off.

Henry Galt.
January 13, 2014 1:04 pm
RichardLH
January 13, 2014 3:22 pm

William Connolley says:
January 13, 2014 at 10:45 am
“You’ve failed to distinguish energy-per-second (which is what we’re talking about) from energy-per-day.”
You have failed to read either Wiki or the quotes from it I provided above.
1.5×1022J total energy from the Sun that strikes the face of the Earth each day
The Earth has a cross section of 1.274×1014 square meters and the solar constant is 1361 watts per square meter.
Calculated: 1.27e14 m^2 * 1370 W/m^2 * 86400 s/day = 1.5e22 J
I think the ‘s’ is seconds but I could be wrong.
And you better get your Wiki editing hat on because 1370 differs from 1361 but we all know that Wiki is a moving feast at best.

Reply to  RichardLH
January 13, 2014 11:55 pm

> 1370 differs from 1361
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2010GL045777/pdf
> He disappeared Marcel Leroux
No. Of course I didn’t. I don’t have the power to. You could always find out the facts. Some people find it a useful exercise. As the closer of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Marcel_Leroux
“The result was delete. Ultimately, “fails WP:N” is a very difficult argument to get around, and the humming and hawing about maybe possibly meeting a criterion or two of WP:ACADEMIC is not supported by consensus (even its advocates don’t seem to really believe it)”
Leroux wasn’t notable. You lot should agree with that, because not a one of you had even heard of him before the deletion debate on wiki. Amusingly, it turns out that his page was only created in the first place in order to support his inclusion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming which itself recently survived deletion.

Mario Lento
January 13, 2014 4:11 pm

Henry Galt. says:
January 13, 2014 at 1:04 pm
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Purge
Stalin did it so that’s OK then…
http://www.tc.umn.edu/~hick0088/classes/csci_2101/false.html
You are beyond creepy.
++++++++++
Pardon, but who is beyond creepy?
Who is John Galt? /meant in the nicest possible way 🙂

Sisi
January 13, 2014 4:24 pm

“Sisi: I have even better colloquialisms to save you the time.
I’m rubber your glue
I know you are but what am I
Neener neener…”
where is the time-saving?

Sisi
January 13, 2014 4:32 pm


oh dear! The dbstealey sermon! What a waste of time! Not even relevant!
“In fact, I would label your idea as being borderline crazy.”
And thanks to you too! (you person who understands everyone thoroughly from a few comments on a forum).
sarc tags are not needed I would hope

Henry Galt.
January 13, 2014 11:32 pm

Mario
The con creature.
He disappeared Marcel Leroux at wikipaedia and is proud of it.

January 14, 2014 2:07 am

Note: over at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli/ it is said:
[For the record, William Connolley tucked tail and ran when I suggested a debate over global warming at Oxford between you and him. Not surprising, since he is the one person who I believe has even less integrity and ethics than Nuccitelli.]
That’s dishonest; in fact, I have a comment on that post attempting to discuss what M has said, but it appears to have been suppressed. I also have a comment here that hasn’t appeared.
[Note; All comments have been posted. ~ mod.]

Reply to  William Connolley
January 14, 2014 7:26 am

@William Connolley – re: “I have a comment on that post attempting to discuss what M has said, but it appears to have been suppressed.”
I suppose that for someone who regularly suppresses information, Suppress is your first reaction. However as has been constantly shown to you, moderation is the correct term.
But then being an hysterical person, moderation is not in your vocabulary.

January 14, 2014 2:14 am

Sisi says:
“What a waste of time! Not even relevant!”
I see I have the pleasure of using your time. Fixated on my comments, aren’t you, Sisi?
Also, I must comment several posters here for the spanking they’ve been giving to Connolley. He makes it easy, no?
Connolley says: “That’s dishonest!”
Heh, Connolley calling someone else dishonest! Chutzpah!!

January 14, 2014 2:48 am

> [Note; All comments have been posted. ~ mod.]
Thank you. However, that’s only the comments *here*. The comments at lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli are being censored. Simultaneously, I’m being accused of cowardice for failing to debate M. Which is obviously unfair, since I’m doing my best to talk to M, but my attempts are censored.
Perhaps there’s a different mod on this thread. Anyway, I’ll try posting the comment I made there, here, so that people can judge for themselves:
—-
> Professor Lindzen.
Lindzen isn’t a prof. He’s emeritus.
> Actually, Galileo was wrong.
That one is definitely going in the quote-books, long after the rest
of this article is forgotten.
> Damages will be huge.
No they won’t. Firstly, because L won’t sue, he isn’t stupid.
Secondly, because if he did the case would be thrown out – nothing
here raises to the level of libel, even if proved true, which they
wouldn’t be.
> Sooner or later we are going to have to take someone to court
Mann is doing that. Oddly, no-one here seems to be keen for that day
in court to happen.

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 3:05 am

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:07 am
“I also have a comment here that hasn’t appeared.”
Really! Please do re-post it. I am interested in hearing your opinions and observations.

January 14, 2014 7:08 am

> Really! Please do re-post it
My comments here sit in moderation for a while – it makes for fragmented conversation. The one I was referring to there was the one marked January 13, 2014 at 11:55 pm that has now appeared (all my comments in this thread have appeared; the one in http://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/01/13/lindzen-libeled-by-nuccitelli/ is being suppressed, which is ironic, given dbstealey’s apparent desire for a debate between me and M. Perhaps someone could draw M’s attention to this marvellous opportunity he is missing?) . It was about Leroux’s notability, if you’re interested in discussing that.

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 8:23 am

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 7:08 am
“My comments here sit in moderation for a while – it makes for fragmented conversation.”
As do mine. Patience grasshopper.

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 8:29 am

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:48 am
“Lindzen isn’t a prof. He’s emeritus.”
From Wiki (I mean where else would one go for a reference 😉
“In the United Kingdom and most other parts of the world, the term “emeritus professor” is given only to a person of outstanding merit who has already had full professorial status before he or she retired.”
Note the “outstanding merit” bit.
I have a relative who holds that position at Cambridge, UK. He is quite rightly proud of it. I listen carefully to his opinion on many scientific subjects.

Reply to  RichardLH
January 14, 2014 9:36 am

> already had full professorial status before he or she retired
But the key here is “had”. Lindzen did indeed have that status, before he retired. But he lost it when he retired. Prof is a job title, unlike “Dr” which is a degree-earned-title which you keep for life. So L is no longer a prof. He’s now an emeritus prof, which is different.
The Cato institute gets it right: http://www.cato.org/people/richard-lindzen : “Lindzen is a Distinguished Senior Fellow in the Center for the Study of Science. He is also Emeritus Professor of Meteorology at MIT, where he ***was*** the Alfred P. Sloan Professor”
(my bold).

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 10:37 am

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:36 am
“But the key here is “had”.”
So he was a “professor”. Now he is an “emeritus professor”.
And your point was what? Are you seeking to suggest that somehow this change alters the value or qualities of his views? Or are you rather deliberately avoiding the point about “outstanding merit” that is required in order to get to “emeritus professor” status.
As I said I have a relation who enjoys that very status. Both he and his colleagues who he currently publishes with would be rightly offended by your slights (as I am sure Prof. Lindzen would be also).

Reply to  RichardLH
January 14, 2014 10:56 am

> And your point was what?
Good grief, this is difficult. My point was, that he isn’t a prof. And its incorrect to describe him as such. Is that so hard to understand? As to “outstanding merit”, well, that’s a matter for debate: see for example http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2014/01/04/another-one-bites-the-dust-2/ . Lindzen hasn’t done much for decades.
> as I am sure Prof. Lindzen would be also
Good grief, again. You’ve just agreed that he isn’t a prof, and you’re getting his title wrong. Which is indeed a slight. Why are you insulting the very person you profess to be so keen on?

January 14, 2014 10:58 am

RcihardLH,
Correctomundo. Could Connolley be any more despicable? He is trying desperately to denigrate the premier Climatologist, at arguably the world’s preimier engineering school: Dr. Richard Lindzen.
Prof Lindzen’s CV lists at least 240 peer reviewed papers on the climate; more than anyone in the alarmist contingent [and after reading the Climategate emails, we kniow that Mann, Jones and others have falsely padded their CV’s].
When someone is so petty that they have to nitpick the status of swomeone vastly more knowledgeable than them, then the nitpicker clearly has nothing better. We know that the alarmist crowd lacks any testable, verifiable scientific evidence showing that human emissions are the cause of global warming.
Thus, Connolley and his ilk have lost the debate. All that is left for him/them is to try and question whether a full professor who, after many years, has semi-retired to Emeritus status, and who knows what he is talking about — unlike Connolley.
The facts are clear: Lindzen knows, while Connolley is ignorant. Anyone can verify that by viewing Lindzen’s CV. Connolley disagrees with Lindzen. Readers can make up their own minds who is credible, and who is not.

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 11:13 am

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 10:56 am
“Good grief, this is difficult. My point was, that he isn’t a prof.”
Ok – Now I get it. You believe that the correct designation is E Prof. Lindzen. As though that somehow alters much.
And that rather cheap shot about “Lindzen hasn’t done much for decades”
If one were to stack up his work against yours (for instance) I don’t think there would be much doubt as to the weight and value.
Me, I only hold a rather lowly MSc (Dist) to my name so all/most academics have me at an advantage. Doesn’t prevent me from being civilised when talking to/about them though.

richardscourtney
January 14, 2014 11:23 am

William C0nn0lley:
At January 14, 2014 at 10:56 am you assert of Richard Lindzen

Lindzen hasn’t done much for decades.

Actually, that is factually inaccurate; e.g.
Richard S. Lindzen1 and Yong-Sang Choi, ‘On the Observational Determination of Climate Sensitivity and Its Implications’, J. Atmos. Sci., 47(4), 377-390, (2011)
But, whether or not you believe it, you have asserted it.
So, please attempt to emulate it. Many would be very pleased at the improvement if you were successful in an attempt at not doing much for decades.
Richard

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 11:27 am

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 9:36 am
“Prof is a job title, unlike “Dr” which is a degree-earned-title which you keep for life.”
“Emeritus Professor” is for life also so a little birdy tells me.

January 14, 2014 11:49 am

> priemier [sic] Climatologist
Arguably, he’s not a climatologist. His best work isn’t, really.
> Actually, that is factually inaccurate; e.g.
One minor paper isn’t “much”. And yes, I know he’s done more than that one paper. But really, its thin stuff compared to his glory days. His recent stuff has little impact (cue mumbling into beer about Vast Conspiracies).
> nitpick the status
Well, stop talking about it then. All I did was a throwaway correction of M’s error. I didn’t think it was a major matter. But it took 3 iterations with RichardLH to explain this apparently minor matter.
> stack up his work against yours
I agree. Providing we’re talking about lifetime contribution, and we don’t give his recent stuff a negative weight.
> Thus, Connolley and his ilk have lost the debate
Ha ha. At least I’m not dishonest enough to challenge people to debate and then suppress their replies.

richardscourtney
January 14, 2014 12:13 pm

William C0nn0lley:
I am replying to your post at January 14, 2014 at 11:49 am which mentions my post to you at January 14, 2014 at 11:23 am but ignores my request in that post.
I write to inform you of a basic truth which you will find hard to understand. For your sake, please try.
People with low self-esteem often try to demean others who are more respected than themselves. This attempt at demeaning is an especially common behaviour by people whose low self-esteem is deserved because they have earned the disrespect of others.
The behaviour occurs because the pathetic types who do it mistakenly think they can pull themselves up by dragging others down. They can’t. Their attempted demeaning of their betters earns – and obtains – additional contempt for them from others. And that additional contempt of them often leads to an increase of their low self-esteem.
In very recent days you have publicly attempted to demean Bob Tisdale and Richard Lindzen. These gentlemen are each highly respected because they have each earned that respect.
Your attempts at demeaning them have failed. And, unfortunately for you, those attempts have obtained – and deserve – additional contempt of you.
Such behaviour cannot gain respect of you from others and it cannot increase your own self-esteem.
Please try to think about this because you could benefit greatly if you were to understand it.
Richard

January 14, 2014 2:14 pm

I note that Connolley is completely avoiding the ground rules for the proposed debate. Coward that he is, he is afraid to make it meaningful by risking his Wiki position. Why not? Obviously, because he does not have any confidence in his position. He knows he would lose the debate. Connolley is a propagandist with an anti-science agenda. But he is afraid to take any chances.
That makes sense, because no climate alarmist has ever prevailed against a credible skeptic like Lord Monckton in a debate. I don’t blame LM for totally ignoring Connolley, because Connolley consistently avoids taking any chances. Connolley is amusing, because he has no stones. He is truly afraid of a meaningful debate as proposed.
That Chicken Little is a chicken. ☺

Reply to  dbstealey
January 14, 2014 2:22 pm

You made up some ground rules, without consulting either of the proposed participants. As far as I can tell, M hasn’t accepted your bizarre ideas either, yet for some reason you don’t call him a coward.
Wouldn’t it be more interesting to have M and me debate here on WUWT? All we need to have that happen is for you to stop censoring my comments on the M thread.
Your accusations of cowardice are palpably silly. As for taking chances: I’m entirely happy to take my chances against M on that thread. I’m not sure why you think he needs defending against scary me; what are you afraid of?

Reply to  dbstealey
January 15, 2014 5:06 am

– re: “Coward that he is, he is afraid to make it meaningful by risking his Wiki position.”
Given his past practices and performance, I think it is wishful thinking on your part that should he decide to take the challenge, he would honor the rules.

January 14, 2014 2:30 pm

“You made up some ground rules, without consulting either of the proposed participants.”
And you ran away yelping like a scared cur.

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 3:23 pm

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 11:49 am
“But it took 3 iterations with RichardLH to explain this apparently minor matter.”
It took three iterations to get to the stage where you finally suggested that E Prof. Lindzen might quite rightly be offended by the casual dropping of the E from his E Prof. status. I’ll try and remember to apologise if our paths ever cross.
And now the best you can do is imply that he is past his best!
I doubt you will every publish anything that would merit E status – but little minds….

January 14, 2014 4:12 pm

Connolley:
“Wouldn’t it be more interesting to have M and me debate here on WUWT?”
The challenge — which you keep avoiding — had some risk. So you keep changing the subject, and tap-dancing around the challenge. You are afraid of the outcome.
You are afraid of the risk, because you know that the runaway global warming/climate catastrophe scare is completely bogus. You are promoting that bogus scare for whatever reason; it doesn’t matter. All that matters is that there is zero testable, empirical scientific evidence to support it. It is a true Chicken Little scare. There is no “carbon” crisis, and there never was.
What matters is that you do not believe in your position enough to take a real stand. You are simply afraid. Thus, you keep changing the subject, and tap-dancing around the challenge. I expect more of the same.

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 4:25 pm

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:22 pm
“Wouldn’t it be more interesting to have M and me debate here on WUWT?”
Are you suggesting that you would engage in a no name calling, point made, point rebutted discourse here on the web? A real, proper debate?
Now that I’ll offer to chair (to keep the discourse civilised and try and to keep the audience participation down to a dull roar).
I suggest you propose it directly to Anthony along with your suggestion of fair debate ground rules.

Mario Lento
January 14, 2014 4:27 pm

dbstealey says:
January 14, 2014 at 4:12 pm
Connolley:
“Wouldn’t it be more interesting to have M and me debate here on WUWT?”
+++++++++++++++
DB/Connolley: I would pay money for WUWT to host a video debate that would live stream at WUWT. I propose that it require both people to be in the same room at some agreed upon location, with an impartial moderator mutually agreed upon. The donated money would pay for travel expenses with any remaining money allocated at the discretion of WUWT. I say both should be in the same room so that we could have a reliable video capture of the event.
Please consider my proposal. Again – I would pay money to make this happen.

Reply to  Bob Tisdale
January 15, 2014 7:17 am

@Bob Tisdale – yet he is accomplishing the exact opposite. He is generating more page views for WUWT. 😉

RichardLH
January 14, 2014 5:08 pm

Not doing very well at it then. Poor, argumentative style with a strong ‘little man’ flavour. Would not last long in a face to face, chaired debate, IMHO.
Obviously short on a training budget in the Green Party (or he declined the training)

Mario Lento
January 14, 2014 5:14 pm

Bob Tisdale we mis you already! 🙁

Sisi
January 14, 2014 5:38 pm

“I see I have the pleasure of using your time. Fixated on my comments, aren’t you, Sisi?”
Hei! You reacted to a comment of mine!
Did read some of your comments before. They are all the same, nothing new, seems a waste of time from your part (unless you have some copy and paste routine 😄 ).

Sisi
January 14, 2014 5:45 pm

“Bob Tisdale we [miss] you already! :(”
Poor Mario!

January 14, 2014 5:51 pm

Bob T says:
“Wow, you guys are still at it with Connolley?”
Bob, you’re right. Connolley will argue incessantly with everyone in the most obnoxious manner, while never committing to anything. Anyway, my point has been made, and made repeatedly: he is afraid of a real debate with real stakes, and he doesn’t believe in what he preaches. He has an agenda, and it isn’t scientific probity. So I think we can forget about him.
I believe Anthony only let him back in the interest of fairness, because the article mentioned him. We can see why he was originally given the boot.

January 14, 2014 5:53 pm

Sisi says:
“Did read some of your comments before. They are all the same, nothing new…”
Scientific truth doesn’t change, Sisi.
And I like Mario’s comments. Sorry you don’t.

Sisi
January 14, 2014 5:59 pm

“Scientific truth doesn’t change, Sisi.”
OMG! dbstealey defines what is scientific truth!
Now all is clear! I bow to your superior intellect!

David Ball
January 14, 2014 6:06 pm

William Connolley says:
January 14, 2014 at 2:48 am
“Oddly, no-one here seems to be keen for that day in court to happen.”
Bollocks.

January 14, 2014 6:12 pm

Sisi,
Let me turn it around for you:
Sisi defines what is not scientific truth!
See your problem? [Probably not.] But keep up the bowing, woman. It’s good for the ego. ☺
The way to show folks that what I post is not scientific truth, is to simply falsify it in a credible way.
But I notice that Sisi never does that. She never even tries, she just complains.

Mario Lento
January 14, 2014 6:53 pm

Sisi, you are free to check me out. I’m not hiding. Your choice of the word “poor” in reference to my typo is telling. People who know anything about me might choose many other words, but “poor” that’s not something people use to describe me in any sense. You hide behind a weird name with the sole purpose to distract people from engaging in the quest for truth in science. That’s pretty low. My bet is that you’re on the dole and I’m paying for you to be so dull and bored that you support policies that make it harder for people to pay your bills. You are a child troll. Your words and style of writing are probably endearing to people who don’t know any better.
I actually feel bad scolding you because you probably really don’t know any better. Not too long ago, you’d risk a spanking and be forced to sit in the corner and you’d get no dessert.

Mario Lento
January 14, 2014 7:10 pm

dbstealey says:
January 14, 2014 at 5:53 pm
“And I like Mario’s comments.”
+++++++
I’m flattered. Thank you.

January 15, 2014 12:47 am

[Snip. Enough ad-homs against Prof Lindzen. ~ mod.]

RichardLH
January 15, 2014 2:13 am

Bob Tisdale says:
January 14, 2014 at 4:49 pm
“Wow, you guys are still at it with Connolley?”
I think he has realised that he accidentally said something he is not now prepared to honour.
“Wouldn’t it be more interesting to have M and me debate here on WUWT?”
Of course a large number of people, myself included, immediately jumped on that and asked if he would like a true, proper, chaired debate at a normal, civilised, level instead of name calling and other such stuff
Strangely silent since then but we wait, hoping……

RichardLH
January 15, 2014 2:22 am

William Connolley says:
January 15, 2014 at 12:47 am
[Snip. Enough ad-homss against Prof Lindzen. ~ mod.]
Bile will out I suppose. He just digs a bigger hole for himself.
Please do note that to be fully correct as per Connolley’s observation that is should be E Prof. Lindzen (or however else we are supposed to shorten Emeritus Professor – I cannot find it in my usual references for abbreviations) unless we too might just possibly offend the man. Not that I think he would be so deeply offended by such a usage but…..
So who out there knows or can find the correct terminology so that we can get his status properly recognised. It seems very unreasonable to drop the Prof. bit entirely as that definitely would offend.

RichardLH
January 15, 2014 2:31 am

OK found it. That should read Prof. Emur. Lindzen. rather than Prof.

RichardLH
January 15, 2014 7:35 am

Dealing with spluttering, ranting, name calling individuals is all grist to the mill for any seasoned Chairman (if the venue is a real debate/meeting).
Dealing with such on the open platform of the web is slightly more trying and does up the bandwidth and reading requirements somewhat.
Such is the penalty for using a truly global forum.

January 15, 2014 1:02 pm

A debate would be interesting. Connolley, knowing the climate “debate” well, would be a very good candidate to debate Mockton. A much better candidate as most scientists that know the scientific literature well, but not the kind of things that are discussed here.
The win/lose part does not make any sense whatsoever, however. Who would “win” the debate would depend on who is invited to sit in the audience. I am sure you do not really expect “alarmists” in the audience being convinced by Mockton, just as I have never seen and no longer expect a climate ostrich being convinced by scientific evidence.

January 15, 2014 1:54 pm

Victor V says:
“Who would ‘win’ the debate would depend on who is invited to sit in the audience.”
That is why it was suggested to have the debate at Oxford, which has a centuries-old method of determining the winner: the door each audience member leaves through records his/her vote. It was proposed that the audience would consist of neutral members. That would not be hard to accomplish, as there are various ways of assuring at least reasonable neutrality and an ethical resaponse.
But the real reason there will be no debate is the requirement that the winner would take the loser’s position, whether it was writing articles for WUWT, or moderating at Wikipedia.

January 15, 2014 5:57 pm

dbstealey says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:54 pm
It was proposed that the audience would consist of neutral members.
This may not be realistic. However you could have all members give their opinion at the start and see how many changed their mind at the end.

Mario Lento
January 15, 2014 6:10 pm

Victor Venema says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:02 pm
+++++++++
I checked your link to your name. I must say, your analogies are very clever and logical counterpoints made to weak claims that you say were made by “ostriches”. Perhaps any debate that you would find “interesting” would be based around the question, “where is the quantifiable evidence that additional CO2 was to blame for “almost all of the” short term warming in AR4’s SPM or “most of the” short term warming that stopped well over a decade ago” in AR5’s SPM? Note I said “short term” since the claims of the IPCC have been pigeon-holed to exist only in the short term. I do not think they are trying to make a case for the 50-70’s period being a warming trend. And I do not think they are blaming pre – 50’s climate on anthro’-causes.
The problem Connolly has is that he knows there is no evidence to support the claims made by the IPCC. If he had it, he’d reveal it cogently. Certainly “ostriches” may have made some lame counter points, at least the way you represented the so called ostriches. But your proving your version of their claims to be lame does not provide evidence that additional CO2’s effect on climate has been measured and that it is able to be separated from the variability that exists in climate. Sure, it was easy to be fooled by themselves where we had some correlation for a 25 or so year period. At that time, the claim was that natural variability was tiny compared to the so called proof that more CO2 was the culprit. After all, the models knew the answer and were programmed to produce their proof. You know this, right? Did you study the models and how they were programmed to respond to feedbacks? If you do know how the models work, at least now, you understand why they’re being tossed out.
If we’re talking about evidence, there is none to support the claims of the IPCC in their SPMs. Thus, Connolly’s side of the debate can only make deceptive statements and distract from the fact that past claims of proof have been duly debunked using the IPCC’s own metrics. You know what they are. Thus, we have it, their only “supposed” proof, the models, are now in the trash bins. After several decades, they are back to square 1, trying to find (to model) a new “smoking gun” which exists within their wildest imaginations.
There, that’s my feedback that you had asked for in your blog site.

Mario Lento
January 15, 2014 6:28 pm

Mario Lento says:
January 15, 2014 at 6:10 pm
Victor Venema says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:02 pm
++++++++++++
Mario says====> PS – I have to say, I really do want to know what is true. I am not an ideologue. So, I do not claim with any certainty that I know what will happen with climate. My guess several years ago was that it appeared warming was not in the immediate future and that cooling was likely.
As I’ve said before, being wrong once teaches me more than being right. So school me.
But as of this time, I claim with certainty that I have not seen evidence of proof of catastrophic warming being caused by a 25 to 40% increase in CO2. As a matter of fact, it appeared there was more warming at lower CO2 concentrations than at today’s peak levels. By all logic supposedly used by “the climate scientists”, the stall, slow down, reversal, pause, non-warming, or cooling over the past 1.5 decades was claimed to be impossible to occur. Only impossible if their hypothesis (certainly not a theory because there has never been a true consensus) were in fact correct. Get it? Their hypothesis was nullified by it’s own metrics.

Mario Lento
January 15, 2014 6:34 pm

wbrozek says:
January 15, 2014 at 5:57 pm
dbstealey says:
January 15, 2014 at 1:54 pm
It was proposed that the audience would consist of neutral members.
This may not be realistic. However you could have all members give their opinion at the start and see how many changed their mind at the end.
+++++++++++++++++
Wager: although I would like to see the debate in any decent forum, I wager $100 that 99% of pro-AGW folks would declare victory regardless of the outcome. However, if there were in fact credible evidence to support the AGW claims, I wager $200 that 75% of us skeptics would declare defeat. All most of us want is for truth and honesty. There is no ulterior motive except to be allowed to thrive freely and for important decisions about our energy policy to be based in truth.

January 15, 2014 7:26 pm

philjourdan says:
“Given [Connolley’s] past practices and performance, I think it is wishful thinking on your part that should he decide to take the challenge, he would honor the rules.”
I had thought of that, and you are probably right. It would require honest, ethical individuals to abide by their pre-debate agreement. I have no doubt that Lord Monckton would play by the rules. But Connolley? Not so much…
wbrozek,
I had in mind this method of tallying audience votes. With an audience that was inclined to favor the alarmist argument, Lord Monckton still won that debate. Today, sentiment is even less pro-alarmist and more skeptical.

Janice Moore
January 15, 2014 9:15 pm

Thank you, Bob Tisdale and D. B. Stealey, for correcting (or trying to, heh) Mr. Connolly’s (and rabbet’s) failure to grasp what I meant by my compliment to Mr. Tisdale on his have-to-go-back-to-work thread on his cite and, in the course of your explanations defending my honor. How lovely to know you think I’m “nice,” D. B. — I always imagined you thought I was mostly just a pain.
Gratefully,
Janice
**************************************************
FYI (anyone): By citing Einstein as a recipient of a purely honorary Ph.D. (this one, from Oxford University, England), I was merely establishing the merit of such a degree. I could have used any one of dozens of fine scholars who have been awarded and deservedly so an honorary degree. I picked Einstein because I knew that fact without having to look it up as I would have had to for anyone else.
I stand by my assertion. Bob Tisdale, by his scholarship, has proven beyond all doubt that he is, indeed, a de facto Ph. D..
Only one deluded by pride or envy could fail to recognize such an obvious fact.
Have a nice day! (LOL)
Janice

Janice Moore
January 15, 2014 9:17 pm

“on his site…” (ooops)
[But all others must sight his site to cite his exciting inciteful farsight. Mod]

Janice Moore
January 15, 2014 9:35 pm

Oh, Mod, how nice to hear from you once again! #(:))
You are soooo punny.

January 15, 2014 11:50 pm

J. Moore says:
“I always imagined you thought I was mostly just a pain.”
Not at all.

RichardLH
January 16, 2014 3:16 am

William Connolley says:
January 15, 2014 at 12:47 am
[Snip. Enough ad-homss against Prof Lindzen. ~ mod.]
Now you gona and done it. He’s gone off somewhere sulking and vindicated (in his own mind) that WUWT has censored his most important posts and thinking.
Did kinda fail on the whole ‘debate’ thing but….
And please, please make it Prof. Emer. Lindzen in future so as to not offend by reducing his status 😉

Janice Moore
January 16, 2014 9:19 am

@ D. B. Stealey — thanks!

Mario Lento
January 17, 2014 10:24 pm

Janice: I told you so… 🙂 no pain, but still a gain.

Janice Moore
January 17, 2014 10:36 pm

Thanks, Mario.
;(0_0); <– uh, oh….. my head just got TOO BIG. Now, I'm stuck in the hallway all night… I'll just have to think about all my mea culpas for the week so I can sleep in my bedroom instead of on the floor!

%d bloggers like this: