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.
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.
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.
> 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).
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).
> 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?
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.
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.
William C0nn0lley:
At January 14, 2014 at 10:56 am you assert of Richard Lindzen
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
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.
> 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.
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
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. ☺
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?
@dbstealey – 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.
“You made up some ground rules, without consulting either of the proposed participants.”
And you ran away yelping like a scared cur.
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….
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.
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.
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.
Wow, you guys are still at it with Connolley?
Oy vey. He’s just trying to suck a little traffic out of WUWT to help with his stats at ScienceBlogs.
@Bob Tisdale – yet he is accomplishing the exact opposite. He is generating more page views for WUWT. 😉
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)
Bob Tisdale we mis you already! 🙁
“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 😄 ).
“Bob Tisdale we [miss] you already! :(”
Poor Mario!
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.
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.
“Scientific truth doesn’t change, Sisi.”
OMG! dbstealey defines what is scientific truth!
Now all is clear! I bow to your superior intellect!
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.
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.