Buy

Books
Click images for more details

Support

 

Twitter
Recent comments
Recent posts
Currently discussing
Links

A few sites I've stumbled across recently....

Powered by Squarespace

Discussion > A temperature timeline for the last 22,000 years

Some Climate Science experts create Overheating in their own minds, and then allow it to spread into everything they do.

If we assume that Phil Clarke's temperature has risen above a natural tipping point, in trying to defend fraudulent science, one can only imagine the levels of bullying that permeate the gatekeepers of climate science.

It would not matter if William M Connolley had only edited/modified/deleted one single article at Wikipedia, to further his own selfish interests. Arguing about one single paper, is more important to Phil Clarke, than explaining the other 5,000.

Assuming that William M Connolley is not still actively modifying scientific evidence .........

Sep 15, 2016 at 10:07 AM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Richards has taken aim at a non-existent target. Most of his papers seem to be documenting the cooling trend that preceded the 1970s, but nobody disputed that trend, least of all Connolley, who wrote on Page 1 of his 'Myth' paper.

Rigorous measurements of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide were available for the first time, along with modeling results suggesting that global warming would be a clear consequence. Meanwhile, newly created global temperature series showed cooling since the 1940s, and other scientists were looking to aerosols to explain the change.

So Richards is arguing a collossal Straw Man. The actual myth was explicitly stated:

the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.

Clearly, I haven't examined all the 285 cited papers - why would I be interested in the musings of a liar? - but few if any seem to contradict the actual argument Connolley was making, not even the Masters degree thesis on regional trends in Southern Saskatchewan or the paper on migratory habits of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), or the Stewart and Glantz paper Richards cites as one of his 'greatest hits' which states

By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere.

I think bullshit is the kindest epithet possible.

I wonder what the armadillos are doing now?

Sep 15, 2016 at 10:18 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Richards has taken aim at a non-existent target. Most of his papers seem to be documenting the cooling trend that preceded the 1970s, but nobody disputed that trend, least of all Connolley, who wrote on Page 1 of his 'Myth' paper.

Rigorous measurements of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide were available for the first time, along with modeling results suggesting that global warming would be a clear consequence. Meanwhile, newly created global temperature series showed cooling since the 1940s, and other scientists were looking to aerosols to explain the change.

So Richards is arguing a collossal Straw Man. The actual myth was explicitly stated:

the following pervasive myth arose: there was a consensus among climate scientists of the 1970s that either global cooling or a full-fledged ice age was imminent. A review of the climate science literature from 1965 to 1979 shows this myth to be false. The myth’s basis lies in a selective misreading of the texts both by some members of the media at the time and by some observers today. In fact, emphasis on greenhouse warming dominated the scientific literature even then.

Clearly, I haven't examined all the 285 cited papers - why would I be interested in the musings of a liar? - but few if any seem to contradict the actual argument Connolley was making, not even the Masters degree thesis on regional trends in Southern Saskatchewan or the paper on migratory habits of the nine-banded armadillo (Dasypus novemcinctus), or the Stewart and Glantz paper Richards cites as one of his 'greatest hits' which states

By the late 1970s that prevailing view had seemingly shifted 180 degrees to the belief that the earth’s atmosphere was being warmed as a result of an increasing CO2 loading of the atmosphere.

I think bullshit is the kindest epithet possible.

I wonder what the armadillos are doing now?

Sep 15, 2016 at 10:19 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

 I don't remember the hockey stick having a downtick to represent the Little Ice Age...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:T_comp_61-90.pdf

Memory can play tricks, what would you call that thing in the late 1400s?

Sep 15, 2016 at 10:29 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

PC:

The reality is circa 5,400 edits
Sorry, wrong again (anyone else surprised?):
General user info

Username: William M. Connolley
User groups: rollbacker
First edit: Feb 07, 2003 11:46:59
Unique articles edited: 5,429
Average edits per page: 7.21
Total edits (including deleted): 39,162
Deleted edits: 1,300
Live edits: 37,862

Note the total edits: 39,162! Not, as you claim, circa 5,400. My, but hasn’t he been a busy little bee?! His influence is still at work, with a blatant smearing attempt on the page for the newly-elected Australian senator, Malcolm Roberts.
… why would I be interested in the musings of a liar?
Why, indeed. As you have also been exposed as a liar, why do you expect us to be interested in your musings?

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:02 AM | Registered CommenterRadical Rodent

I stand corrected thanks, he made changes to c 5400 individual articles, about 7 changes to each.

Not sure that changes very much .....

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:08 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil if changing c. 5400 articles is not changing "very much", what does (in your world view)?

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:15 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

I meant that the difference between making 7 or so edits on average to 5400 articles as opposed to 5400 individual edits, as I mistakenly wrote, does nothing to exonerate the veracity of Richards' claims. The changes, over thirteen and a half years, included reversing vandalism, inserting pictures and other minor changes, and were on a wide variety of topics in addition to GW.

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:23 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

So Phil how many bona fide comments were removed? I seem to recall that an inaccuracy in the biographic entry of a sceptic, was corrected by that person, only for the correction to be excised. Does this amount to fair practice? I don't recall the details but I'm sure someone here may have a better memory than mine.

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:36 AM | Unregistered CommenterACK

I am not sure you understand how Wikipedia works. Nor am I an expert but I know they have explicit rules on living people.

If you’re an admin (as I was for a while, before I got de-sysopped, full story sometime) you get the power to delete articles. However, all such deletions show up and all other admins have the power to recreate deleted articles. So going around deleting articles I didn’t like on climate grounds would not have worked – people would have said “hey, you have a [[WP:COI]] you can’t do that. And indeed, although the edit counter will faithfully tell you “Pages deleted: 510”, you need to look at http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&user=William+M.+Connolley to see what I actually did. Most of the pages you see there are redlinks – which is to say, they are links to pages that don’t exist, because (surprise) I deleted them. But any admin that disagreed could restore any of them. Most of the pages I deleted were just simple deletions – they were totally uncontroversial and obvious (I was never much of a one for frequenting [[WP:AFD]] where people have long and tedious arguments about whether individual pokemon cards are more notable than Polish politicians. One of my controversial deletes was [[Antisemitic incidents during the 2008-2009 Israel-Gaza conflict]] which I deleted with “edit warring disaster area. where are all the people who voted keep?” but sadly it got re-created (the comment, oh you wiki-virgins, is a reference to the discussion at AFD/DR; don’t lets go there). I’m not at all sure I deleted *any* controversial GW-type pages, but if I did I’m sure the Dark Side will bitch at me and I’ll update this.

http://scienceblogs.com/stoat/2010/01/04/a-childs-garden-of-wikipedia-p/

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:45 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

I look forward to it. Here's a list of all pages deleted by WMC over the last 7 years or so, might jog memories:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Log/delete&offset=&limit=500&user=William+M.+Connolley&type=delete

Sep 15, 2016 at 11:53 AM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Wikipedia's description of WUWT is reason enough to ignore what it says regarding climate.

Sep 15, 2016 at 12:02 PM | Unregistered Commenterhunter

Phil Clarke are you paid for your Public Relations skills aswell as your Climate Science expertise?

Accusing others of fraud and lying, whilst being a part of, and implicating yourself in the lies and frauds of others, may be acceptable behaviour in Green Blob Climate Science, but the Consensus amongst UK Legal Experts is that such activity may not attract favourable judgements in Court.

It would seem that Michael Mann has been similarly advised by US Legal experts.

You are demonstrating "Nuremberg" levels of Denial, yet no Green Blob member is yet behind bars. Why the sudden panic over William M Connolley's disinformation campaign?

Sep 15, 2016 at 12:18 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I invoke Godwins.

Sep 15, 2016 at 12:36 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Heh, kim's corollary to Godwin's Law is that the first person to invoke the Law in any discussion of authoritarianism is a useful idiot.
========

Sep 15, 2016 at 1:08 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

Phil Clarke, is that St Godwin, Patron Saint of Liars, Fraudsters and Deniers?

You have regularly championed the fiction of Skeptical Science, who still quote William M. Connolley. Mann, The Guardian, 97% Consensus.

Fraud Investigators know to investigate known associates, and mistrust all of them, until proven innocent.

It is a lot cheaper for Governments to cut off the funding for Climate Science, there are more worthy causes. Venture capitalists have given up on Green Energy Scams.

97% of Climate Science is based on lies, and Phil Clarke has lied to prove it.

Sep 15, 2016 at 1:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

I wasn't discussing authoritarianism.

But I have no idea what Golf Charlie is on about. Not sure he knows himself any more.

Sep 15, 2016 at 1:28 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Well, now, you would say that, wouldn't you, Phil?

The Big Lie is suppression of natural variability in order to artificially support the attribution of warming to Man.
============

Sep 15, 2016 at 1:37 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

That would imply our estimate of climate sensitivity is too low.

Sep 15, 2016 at 2:38 PM | Unregistered CommenterPhil Clarke

Phil Clarke, when you have lied about liars and lying, how is anyone supposed to know what you are thinking, least of all you? Trying to blame others for your poor judgement, lies and mistakes, is a classic example of denial. You qualify with a top score!

Sep 15, 2016 at 2:45 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Phil falls off the track. Help him, someone.
============

Sep 15, 2016 at 2:50 PM | Unregistered Commenterkim

golfCharlie. If you lie about lying, does that mean you are telling the truth? Climate science ethics is becoming oh so complicated.

Sep 15, 2016 at 3:02 PM | Unregistered CommenterACK

ACK, what Climate Science needs now, is an "honest broker" to determine which bits represent the honest 3% that should be retained.

As William M Connolley has left a Green Slime Trail all over Wikipedia, his record of edits may prove to have some use, in determining who has benefitted from those who have "doctored" Climate Science.

Sep 15, 2016 at 3:16 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

From Stoat, William M Connolley's blog, some top tips about not getting caught, in the wake of the RICO 20

"Firstly, what were Shukla, Maibach and all the others thinking when they did all of this from their work email accounts? As wiki says Edward Maibach is a widely recognized expert in public health and climate change communication; he’s a pro. So why is he acting like some naive child in the woods? Half way through they finally get a clue and swap to private email but good grief its a bit late by then. Idiots. They initially try to deny the FOIA requests on the – perfectly reasonable, to anyone in academia – grounds that it was nothing to do with their employment; they just happened to be doing it on what looked like work time. Which, in academia, doesn’t really separate from personal time anyway so who cares? Alas, it turns out that judges care. Note that (contrary to some reports I’ve seen) the letter wasn’t on departmental headed notepaper or anything like that."

Things could get interesting if some of the RICO 20 state they were relying on information from Wikipedia, if it turns out William M Connolley's fingerprints are on the file.

Obviously doctoring 5,000 Wikipedia articles (+/- any amount you like for climate science adjustments) is not illegal, but a good way of upsetting a lot of low life, and other Green Party members.

Sep 15, 2016 at 5:44 PM | Unregistered Commentergolf charlie

Golf Charlie

I detect an inconsistency.

You claim that the Mediaeval Warm Period and the Little Ice Age have been edited out of history.

If that is so, why were they both mentioned in the timeline?

Sep 15, 2016 at 6:31 PM | Unregistered CommenterEntropic man