Pointman writes: I think we’ve all had that pleasant surprise when something totally unexpected just drops out of the sky and into your lap. That happened to me last weekend when a creature called William Connolley attempted to comment on a piece I’d written about the Bengtsson scandal. If you’re unfamiliar with him, he’s infamous for editing thousands of Wikipedia articles on climate and anyone significant in the area. You can find several articles on his activities over at WUWT.
His idea of truth is somewhat idiosyncratic to say the least, but let’s just say if you were any way sceptical, you weren’t going to get a glowing entry. When the skeptics tried to correct the foul calumnies for their entry, they were promptly changed back, a loop they went around until he banned them from being able to edit anything.
I’m actually quite knowledgeable about him, since I’ve been a fawning admirer and stroker of his ego for as far back as his days co-founding the joke site called Real Climate with Gavin Schmidt and others of a similar ilk. Needless to say, it’s under one of my dark side Eco-Annie personas. The site is pretty much moribund these days but it did get a sniffy mention in the climategate emails by Phil “hide the decline” Jones, as being there just to disseminate propaganda.
He was never particularly significant in the self-declared pantheon of climate demigods, more like their technical gopher despatched as required to cobble together various bits of HTML for them. In his Wikipedia heyday, he built up a small but dedicated following of fanboys but since Wiki banned him and nobody sane reads his blogging attempts, he’s of late been at a loose end, cruising around the skeptic blogosphere, trolling for all he’s worth and generally leaving a terrible stench behind him.
As it happens, I’ve a personal score to settle with him, and one I never thought I’d get the chance to do but this looked to be a heaven-sent opportunity, if I could just play it right. Picking an appropriate way would undoubtedly come down to making use on his own rather inflated idea of his importance in the general scheme of things climatic, but in just the right way. He’s used to swimming around in a little pond of mutual fishy admirers and as far as I’m aware has never had a good kicking, so I laced up my steel-toed boots and thought about an appropriate bait to fix on the hook.
Read the rest of this entertaining post here: The scorning of William Connolley.
Don’t become the bully you faced …
In this case I disagree. It is pacifism that is the great evil. To let this sub-human Connolley go unpunished for his crimes against nature and man would be a grave injustice. The sub-human Connolley is an odious creature best described in portions of The Lord of the Rings. (I’ll let the reader decide which part or character)
@Eco-Annie.
“that Curry woman”? I beg your pardon, that’s Dame Judith to climate camp trollops like you.
Pointman.
William Connolley says:
May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm
…..What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation and then gloats about it?”
Ive read your “work”, and I think that sentence applies to you. You have the self awareness of a sea urchin.
its sad that you cant, or won,t see and appreciate what youve done.
Victor Venema says: [noted]
Dear Anthony Watts, it is regretful that you approve of the horrible language used in these comments. This ugliness is not something I had expected to see at WUWT, if only on opportunistic grounds. Don’t you want WUWT to be a broadly read somewhat respectable mainstream anti-CAGW blog? The comments on this post do not sound like conservative or Christian family values to me, but more like atheist übermensch extremist thinking.
If you have to resort to this kind of language, you have lost the rational debate. Kudos for making this official.
While we now know that you condone abusive language, I am wondering if you also officially support misinformation. You know that this statement by NikFromNYC is wrong: “Here is the hockey stick you helped create, the WUWT site rating that just tripled in 2013: http://www.alexa.com/siteinfo/wattsupwiththat.com”
Surely, having “the world’s most viewed site on global warming and climate change”, the number of readers is important to you and you know your blog statistics. Any other blogger known, surely you do. You know this is wrong, you need no scientific knowledge or skills to see this. You also publish the WordPress summary results at the end of the year and everyone else knows it is wrong. Don’t you think that the right thing to do would be to correct this misinformation? What would Jesus do?
REPLY: Oh puhleeze, invoke Jesus? Nope that’s when YOU lose. What’s official is that you seem to think your opinion or worries carries any weight here. I think comments on your blog, and your blog posts are pretty ugly, but you don’t see me over there whining about it and telling you what you must do ( I know your university stoked ego can’t assimilate criticism from us mere peasants, so I don’t bother). Looking at how often your cite WUWT in negative connotations, I’d say you have a fixation.
So, man up – what specifically is this “horrible language” you object to? Be specific if you want specific actions, otherwise its just pathetic whining from what is known as “concern troll” behavior. You don’t really care about “what would Jesus do”, Christian Values, etc. They are just tools for a punch line with you. Your typical M.O. is just like the execrable David Appell; whip up comments here then go write a post about how terrible we are here. Like Appell, your mission is pure denigration (though perhaps better shellacked than Appell’s rants with a Venema veener of special language) .
Further, since you use the publicly funded email address comments@uni-bonn.de here, I assume then that all of your whining is in an official capacity for the university?
Yes, feel free to be as upset as you wish, because I’m calling you out for using a university email address for private purposes, unless of course, your blog whining is a sanctioned and funded exercise. Perhaps a blog post on Victor Venema and University of Bonn would help flesh this out? – A
Victor Venema says:
May 31, 2014 at 5:58 am
….What would Jesus do?”
jesus would tell you to stop posting using an anonymous sock puppetty troll name.
[ No, unfortunately, Victor Venema is all too real. http://www2.meteo.uni-bonn.de/mitarbeiter/venema/ ]
http://youtu.be/hmbEuRzlhIs
Sweet – Little Willy Song Lyrics
North side , east side
Little Willy, Willy wears the crown, he’s the king around town
Dancing, glancing
Willy drives them silly with his star shoe shimmy shuffle down
Way past one, and feeling allright
‘Cause with little Willy round they can last all night
Hey down, stay down, stay down down
‘Cause little Willy, Willy won’t go home
But you can’t push Willy round
Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
Up town, down town
Little Willy, Willy drives them wild with his run-around style
Inside, outside
Willy sends them silly with his star-shine shimmy shuffle smile
Mama done chase Willy down through the hall
But laugh, Willy laugh, he don’t care at all
Hey down, stay down, stay down, down
‘Cause little Willy, Willy won’t go home
But you can’t push Willy round
Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
Little Willy, Willy won’t
Willy won’t, Willy won’t
Little Willy, Willy won’t
Willy won’t, Willy won’t
Little Willy, Willy won’t
Willy won’t, Willy won’t
Little Willy, Willy won’t
Willy won’t, Willy won’t
Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
But you can’t push Willy round
Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
But you can’t push Willy round
Willy won’t go, try tellin’ everybody but, oh no
Little Willy, Willy won’t go home
William Connolley says:
May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm
Sparks “Do you endorse the censorship of sceptically minded people on anthropogenic global warming?”
Idiot“Nope. But you provide no examples, so this is a matter of general principles.”
Are you for real? there are plenty of examples publicly available, I find your ‘principles’ obnoxious and untrustworthy.
Sparks “I hate bullies! even wannabe ones.”
idiot “That’s nice. What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation and then gloats about it?”
I call that ‘behaviour’ a reality, you are even inclined to lie about this by suggesting people are ‘gloating’ believe me, no one is gloating! ‘disgusted’ is the word you are looking for, and while you are looking.. I’m not impressed with you, catch a grip and give your self a shake man.
Pointman ironically forgot to point out, you are barred from “Pointy’s Bar & Grill” for your own safety. 😉
Mac and Mark, I fully understand your positions and accept them. My point may have been a bit vague. Perhaps it would have been better stated as such.
At what point does retribution turn into retaliation or restitution?
The acts of the person in question are indeed reprehensible. He fully deserves pounded like a nail into a board. However, at some point, if you continue to pound that nail, you ultimately damage the board itself.
Regards Ed
Richo says:
May 31, 2014 at 12:02 am
“Yes, William is pain in the butt. However, I don’t agree with what the Pointman has done, it is censorship. I don’t think that the skeptic community interests are well served by going down the slippery Stalinist slope of the warmist commissars. “
Read Pointman’s post again, it is made clear why William was moderated, in fact, William’s comments are the subject of the entire post, and again here at WUWT, there is no censorship taken place, just an intelligent guy elaborating on his good fortune to be able to have a reply to a wannabe oppressor… lol
William Connolley says:
May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm
…..What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation
==============
Urban legend has it that person is called a “Wiliam Connolley”. More generally the behavior is called “Real Climate”. Scientists so insecure in their beliefs, so certain that their methods will not stand up to scrutiny that they don’t publish their data, they hide the decline, and censor anyone that tried to point out the error in their methods.
Because of course they are scientists in name only, because they don’t follow the scientific method. Instead they search only for confirmation of their beliefs, of which their are an infinite number. What they fail to search for is contradiction of their beliefs, which is what the Scientific Method requires.
And when the contradiction is found, proving their beliefs are faulty? They circle the wagons, censor the information, prevent publication, generate endless epicycles within epicycles. Global Warming causes warming, global warming causes cooling. Global warming causes nonsense and non-science.
The CO2 theory of AGW predicted accelerated temperature increase from 2000 onwards. This prediction failed to materialize. By all measures of science, the CO2 theory of AGW is a failed theory.
In failing to acknowledge this failure of prediction, the Climate Science community calls the credibility of all sciences into question. Public trust in science is predicated on adherence to a set of principles. Chief among those is honesty.and openness.
When the public sees scientists covering up their mistakes, and other scientists standing by silently in fear of speaking out, the public knows it can no longer trust science.
The worst thing that could happen to the narcissist is nothing. History will have forgotten him and his trespasses. This is William’s nightmare. I say “forget him”.
ossqss says:
May 31, 2014 at 8:26 am
ossqss,
We have no quarrel, ossqss.
I am amused by Connolley demonstrating on this WUWT blog thread just what a slow ‘learner’ he really is though.
Mac
PS: Appreciate your thoughtful inputs here!
Great play by Pointman funny too.
The stoat seems willfully blind, this character complaining about behaviour by others.
The very behaviour for which William Connelly is internationally notorious, in fact probably the only thing he will be remembered for, however briefly,is profoundly absurd.
If a fool looks into the looking glass, what looks back?.
Apart from the chuckles, why bother giving this humourless,self obsessed, destroyer of wikipedia, any space at all?
He would get with the times and herd his flock by SUV.
[snip]
>> William Connolley says: What do you think of the behaviour of someone who censors the other side of a conversation
>ferdberple says: (nothing to the point)
Is there some reason you don’t want to answer the question? Is P’s behaviour embarrassing to you? If you think P’s behaviour in just fine, then don’t hesitate to say that his censorship is just what you like.
Sparks> I call that ‘behaviour’ a reality
You don’t have the honesty to condemn censorship, impartially; and you don’t have the guts to agree with P’s censorship either. So you take refuge in evasion.
> Read Pointman’s post again, it is made clear why William was moderated, in fact
Another one who refuses to see reality. My comments were censored; calling them “moderated” is just an evasion. I thought you lot claimed to be the reality-centered folk?
> barred … for your own safety
You really think you pussies are dangerous?
> Are you for real? there are plenty of examples publicly available
But, alas, you have none to hand. Nothing specific.
WC flushed.
“You really think you pussies are dangerous?”
Is there a reason this consummate turd dropper is being accommodated here?
Bill Illis says:
May 30, 2014 at 4:18 pm
Its pretty clear that any research paper, comment on any website, Wikipedia edits/deletions or radio repair as is his current profession, by William Connolley has been screwed up and done completely wrong.
Why anyone would let him try to post anything on anything is beyond me.
If only the Wikipedia creators knew beforehand that William Connolley would take their brilliant idea and completely destroy it, the whole world would be a different place today. (Wiki had the potential to be the greatest benefit to mankind of almost any other invention as well as the potential to be worth billions of dollars to the original creators, but Connolley more-than-anyone- else turned it into untrustworthy joke).
How true and how sad to have a beautiful idea transformed into a propaganda machine.
Is it true that Connolley was “banned” from Wikipedia? Can anyone tell me what the outcome of that whole affair was? I was reading some Wiki material about orbital forcing a few days ago, and he was all over the topic with some “talk” tab entries only a few days old. He was busy making sure that Loutre and Berger (2003) remains the final word on the course of the present interglacial.
William Connolley says:
May 31, 2014 at 10:39 am
Playing victim again.. grow up fool.
William Connolley
Is there any instance where you can say, in retrospect, that you were over-zealous in changing, deleting, reverting etc Wiki-entries, or (as you prefer to call it) ‘censoring’ other viewpoints than those you agree with?
Inquiring minds would like to know. And note: I am not asking if you think you were sometimes justified. I am asking if you (now, in perspective) think that there were instances where you took your belief in your own justification too far …
William Connolley says:
May 31, 2014 at 10:39 am
Sparks “I call that ‘behaviour’ a reality”
idiot: “You don’t have the honesty to condemn censorship, impartially; and you don’t have the guts to agree with P’s censorship either. So you take refuge in evasion.”
Look here you imbecile, where have you ever been censored? Name one site that has ever censored your bullshit, grow up!
Seriously! lmao.
> Is it true that Connolley was “banned” from Wikipedia?
No. Well, actually, it depends on what you mean.
> Can anyone tell me what the outcome of that whole affair was?
Lots of people will tell you. Most of them will get it wrong. If you look at my talk page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley) you’ll find plenty of discussion of the cases (well, actually, there were several, so its complex). But https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate_change#William_M._Connolley_topic-banned is probably what you want. My own view is http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/10/16/the-wikipedia-disaster-area/
> Is there any instance
Nothing in particular springs to mind. Whenever I ask this question I’m met with either a resounding silence, or an effort to change the subject, but: is there any article or edit in particular you’d like to discuss?
Oh.. that’s right wikipedia hahaha..