Friday, 30 May 2014

WUWT: Pointman’s: The scorning of William Connolley

More weirdness from the denialosphere: still, its all about me, so I can hardly complain about the bat's piss. Come on Shaw-y.

The post is archived here (updated).

I'll add in comments that I find interesting. Including mine, naturally.


  1. (astonishingly, someone said the obvious)

    pokerguy says:
    May 30, 2014 at 1:12 pm
    Guess I’m missing something. I confess I only made it about 3/4 of the way through. I just kept having the thought, “is this really worth the effort?” Never been a fan of the sneer and jeer, though I admit to indulging myself from time to time.

  2. (perhaps more surprisingly, my reply go through)

    William Connolley says:
    May 30, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    > is this really worth the effort?

    Well, its about me, so obviously yes. Though otherwise I find it hard to see the point. If you want to see the other side of the conversation, its at

  3. (as usual, we diverge onto wikipedia)

    Somebody says:
    May 30, 2014 at 1:51 pm
    I too had a couple of ‘meetings’ with that guy, if I recall correctly. One was on the ‘chaos theory’ Wikipedia page, where I added that the difference between the system state and the measured values (that is, measurement error) is enough for obtaining the big difference (well, not with those exact words). He quickly removed the change, letting there only what it is today: the mention of the numerical errors only. His claim was that ‘it was confusing’. Of course, it is confusing for the ‘science’. They wouldn’t want people realize that measurement errors can lead to the wrong ‘prediction’.

    Another ‘pleasant’ meeting was on the Wikipedia temperature page. I removed the average temperature maps, claiming that they have no place on a page about physical temperature. The same old things, temperature being intensive, you’d better not add it to make an average, and besides, there is no such thing as a physical temperature for a system that is not in thermal equilibrium. Anyway, he quickly reverted the changes, as typical.

    I think that guy might be posting now on Facebook with some fake accounts…

  4. (but now we're back to normality. My reply is stuck in moderation)

    William Connolley says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 30, 2014 at 2:17 pm
    > I removed the average temperature maps, claiming that they have no place on a page about physical temperature.

    This is the Essex stuff, isn’t it? No-one believes that. Just look at posts on this blog. Everyone is entirely happy to talk about average temperature.

    The edit you mean is I think. There was some discussion on the talk page (now archived: in which you ( didn’t really contribute to.

  5. (I think I'll stop at this point, until #2 and #3 make it through moderation, or not)

    William Connolley says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 30, 2014 at 3:04 pm
    > I’m pretty sure he’s allowed to post on WUWT

    Its a lottery (as I write, my comment #1 on this thread is published, but #2 is stuck in moderation. This is #3). After I dissed AW’s faulty memory of his wiki-adventures ( I got banned (see-also AW’s If you see this comment, then I guess that’s no longer true.

    > but his comments get so much scorn I don’t think his ego can handle it.

    Dahling; I wilt under the ravishing eloquence of your disdain. But come on Shaw-y.

    1. Oops: wrong youtube link in the above. Should be It was right in the original. Not that there's anything wrong with dying in your arms tonight.

  6. (#2 and #3 appeared; lets go for 4)

    William Connolley says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 30, 2014 at 10:39 pm
    > As is Pointman’s wont, he lays out both sides of conversation well

    P provides his side of the conversation only. By contrast, I provide both sides of the conversation. This is a matter of obvious fact; how can you get that so badly wrong?

    > he never went away just changed hats

    Wrong. I still edit under the same account.

    > notice I do not use Mr.

    Thanks. Its the wrong title:

    > Being banned from a blog

    Its no great deal being banned from P’s. But what do you make of someone who bans you, but then wants you back (“Come on over to my gaff…”)?

    > Why anyone would let him try to post anything on anything is beyond me

    Some people like to hear both sides of the argument. Not P, obviously.

    > If only the Wikipedia creators knew beforehand that William Connolley would take their brilliant idea and completely destroy it,

    I know I’m, like, immensely powerful and all that, but don’t you think you’re being too generous to me there? One man, destroy wiki?

    > Do you endorse the censorship of sceptically minded people on anthropogenic global warming?

    Nope. But you provide no examples, so this is a matter of general principles.

    > I hate bullies! even wannabe ones.

    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?

  7. (#1-4 have appeared. Here's #5. Looks to me like the denizens have got a bit bored with it all)

    >> 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.

  8. (VV joined in)

    Victor Venema says:
    May 31, 2014 at 5:58 am
    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:”

    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?

  9. William Connolley says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 31, 2014 at 1:26 pm
    > 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 ( you’ll find plenty of discussion of the cases (well, actually, there were several, so its complex). But is probably what you want. My own view is

    > 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?

  10. (VV gets a reply, wherein AW invents a new version of Godwin)

    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). Lookig 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 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

  11. (still going. Odd)

    William Connolley says:
    Your comment is awaiting moderation.
    May 31, 2014 at 2:21 pm
    > It’s a simple Yes/No question. And you didn’t answer …

    Yes I did. I said “Nothing in particular springs to mind”. I have 58k+ edits ( over 10 years. I can’t remember every one in detail. I repeat my offer: “is there any article or edit in particular you’d like to discuss?” Its a simple offer “And you didn’t answer …”

    > Obviously, lots of people think you did.

    Yes, that’s true, but generally most of them also can provide no specifics – its generally something they’ve heard from someone else, an endless chain with no obvious source. is part of my answer.

    > Of the 17,000 Wikipedia entries that you deleted and destroyed

    You’re not very good at this game. But, my deletion log is at if you want to look.

  12. William Connolley says:
    June 1, 2014 at 1:32 pm
    Jonas N> In 58k+ instances you believed that your view warranted the deletion of the view or information of others,

    No, of course not. You really ought to gain some basic familiarity with the wiki editing process before talking of it. Most of my edits involved deleting nothing.For example,

    >> most of them also can provide no specifics ..
    > Irrelevant!

    No, its highly relevant. You’re sure that something terrible has been done – but you don’t know what it is; you can point to no examples of anything that has been done. Here, that’s all fine. In any place that required evidence rather than belief, you’d be laughed out of court.

    > Word is getting out, too:

    That’s years old. Its also hopelessly wrong, and display total ignorance of wiki’s ways. “Connolley did not wield his influence by the quality of his research or the force of his argument but through his administrative position” is wrong: it just doesn’t work that way. “Wikipedia became a leading source of global warming propaganda” is wrong too. The wiki GW article, and related, are a fairly accurate relating of the balance of current scientific opinion, which is what they should be. You disagree with that opinion, and hence you hate and fear wiki, but its dishonest of you not to accept that they do indeed simply reflect that opinion.

    > The articles about global cooling are a farce. No objectivity in presenting those but from a global warming activist point of view.

    OK, lets take the global cooling article. It, too, is an accurate reflection of its sources. I notice that you diss it, but have no specific criticisms to make. What, if anything, *specific* is wrong with it?

    > but not a single mention is done to the fact that CO2 lags temperature.

    Its not really relevant to that article. Its there in other articles, although not in the form you’d want, because the simplistic form you want is wrong.

    LewSkannen> Does not explain why a paper about climate was a suitable reference for ‘weather’ for four years

    Actually it does, but you do need to read it. Its my comment of “13:58, 13 January 2012″ which points out that the paper isn’t about climate.