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.
Yes, even our President stated math is “complext.”
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
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.
William Connolley: You linked Miriam’s post titled “Bob Tisdale is Perennially Puzzled about ENSO” yet you claim in your January 12, 2014 at 12:05 am comment, “No. I used HW as a ref for BT, not for ENSO.” Because that HotWhopper post was about ENSO, I’ll stand by my interpretation that you used Miriam O’Brien’s HotWhopper post as a reference for your understanding of it. Or do you disagree with her? Is that what you’re now saying?
Regarding my deletion of your second comment on the thread at my blog, I simply didn’t want a troll—that’s you, BTW—capitalizing the discussion there. There was nothing cowardly about it. If I had a party at my home, I wouldn’t invite you, and if you appeared, I’d ask you to leave. BTW, I didn’t have to snip your second comment; it would have been much easier to delete it. I snipped it to leave it as a reference that you had appeared a second time and were not welcome. Get it? It’s simple.
BTW, an associate of yours, Eli Rabett, also replied to Janice Moore’s Einstein comment:
http://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2014/01/03/im-retiring-from-full-time-climate-change-blogging/#comment-14522
Eli wrote, “Jonice Moore: FWIW Einstein received his doctorate from Zurich in 1905.”
My reply to Eli reads:
Eli Rabett: FWIW your reply to Janice Moore does not refute what she had written. Please go back and read her comment once more.
Have a nice day.
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.
> 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.
@William Howard Connolley – Re:
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.
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.
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.
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?
I’m in moderation again, I see. WC, please understand that this does not mean I am “banned”.
Richard
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
And I continued saying
Then I followed that with explanation before concluding
But your post I am answering again attempts to claim
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
Aaargh! My repost is still wrongly formatted; why? and it is in moderation, too.
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.
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.
***
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….
William Connolley, thanks for your January 12, 2014 at 5:25 am reply. I don’t believe I’ve had the opportunity to exchange comments with you on other threads. If I have, they weren’t memorable. With your ability to spin, I’ve now added you to my list of entertaining trolls, along with your compatriot Sou.
Adios.
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.
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.
> 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.
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.
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.
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.”
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 says: “I am new to this blog and I don’t know the people involved in the story. ”
Sorry, this is an atypical thread here at WUWT. Usually we discourage interaction with trolls, but since Connolley is the topic of this post…
BTW, welcome aboard.
Thank you Bob, sorry you have to put up with such people. What do they say about not feeding the trolls……….:-)