Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:34, 8 August 2008

Historical Back Pointers

Rather than create archive pages which use up additional space I have decided to instead keep a list of back pointers to permanent links within the history of this talk page at various points in time.

• Back Pointer 1

Discussion with Kim D. Petersen

I trimmed out the bulk of the previous sections so we can focus on the most current points. I am leaving these quotes here for context:

”Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King said last week. He said the Earth was entering the ‘first hot period’ for 60 million years when there was no ice on the plane and “the rest of the globe could not sustain human life.”

— Sir David King, The Independent on Sunday, 2 May 2004

”The government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, was referring to this period when he told reporters at Tony Blair’s Climate Group launch on 27 April that ‘Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live and the rest of the globe would not sustain human life’. He warned that these conditions, with CO2 levels as high as 1,000 pm and no ice left on earth, could again be reached by 2100.”

— Sir David King, New Statesman 17 May 2004

”Before this century is over, billions of us will die, and the few breeding pairs of people that survive will be in the Arctic where the climate remains tolerable.”

— Sir James Lovelock, The Independent, 16 January 2006

Well the first article was a journalist describing King's testimony to the House of Commons - and the second one specifically states that British journalists wrote that King had said .... - But the easiest way to check this ... is to find the testimony (which i've done) . The correct quote is: "Fifty-five million years ago was a time when there was no ice on the earth; the Antarctic was the most habitable place for mammals, because it was the coolest place, and the rest of the earth was rather inhabitable because it was so hot." - iirc journalists can't have tape-recorders etc. in the HoC, so there is nothing surprising about a misquote. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:43, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

One of us must be confused, and I fear it is likely to be you. Please read the following CAREFULLY and then respond accordingly.

"Well the first article was a journalist describing King's testimony to the House of Commons" - I don't think this is correct. As I have pointed out and so did Channel 4, both of these quotes are from Tony Blair's Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004. The House of Commons testimony that you provide above was given on 30 March 2004. THESE ARE TWO SEPARATE EVENTS. Do you agree or disagree?

The first article, , is dated May 2, 2004 and contains the following "Professor Sir David King, said last week." Note that this is consistent with the Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004 and is clearly inconsistent with the House of Commons on testimony on 30 March 2004. Do you agree or disagree?

The second article, , is dated 17 May 2004 and explicitly contains the following "Professor Sir David King, was referring to this period when he told reporters at Tony Blair's Climate Group launch on 27 April ...". So there is no confusion on which event this article is quoting. Do you agree or disagree?

Given that these quotes are from the Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004 and NOT the House of Commons testimony on 30 March 2004, the transcript from the House of Commons tells us nothing about what King actually said at the Climate Group launch. Do you agree or disagree?

"the second one specifically states that British journalists wrote that King had said" - You must be thinking of a different article than this one, , because I cannot find any such statement contained therein. Do you agree or disagree?

Lacking any such admission of having quoted journalists by the second article, it appears that we have two independent reports from different authors which directly quote Sir David King as stating "the rest of the globe could not sustain human life" and "the rest of the globe would not sustain human life" from the same event (i.e. the Climate Group launch on 27 April 2004). Do you agree or disagree?

It is unlikely that two independent authors would independently make the same misquote from the same event, which means that Sir David King most likely made the statements thus quoted (regardless of whether he had intended to or not and/or whether he thought he had some 3 years after the fact). Do you agree or disagree? --GoRight (talk) 22:45, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

A suggestion and a favor

Hi again GoRight. Might I suggest that you archive your talk page? It's getting a bit long.

I also have a favor to ask you. I am the only person who has been conversing with User:Hotflashhome. This editor is doing a lot of work on thermography but they also keep discussing the second law on global warming related talk pages. I was wondering if you could explain, on User talk:Hotflashhome how the existence of greenhouse gases and the greenhouse effect does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. I've failed to do so, but I don't want this user to be frustrated with Misplaced Pages because this user appears to be very willing to do hard work on articles that need it. - Enuja (talk) 04:12, 3 August 2008 (UTC)

Yea, I was thinking it was about time to trim down the talk page. As for User talk:Hotflashhome I saw the stuff on the GW page but haven't really engaged things there. I'll take a look and chime in on their home page. --GoRight (talk) 03:49, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Proposed WikiProject

Hi, You may be interested in a proposal for a new Wikiproject called Left-wing bias Watch. If you're interested, please add your comments to: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Council/Proposals (proposal is near the bottom of the page) Also, please feel free to add any relevant or irrelevant comments to my user talk page. Aletheon (talk) 13:33, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

Res

I try not to mud-wrestle with pigs - I get all muddy, and the pig just likes it. Consider this an official request to never post on my talk page again. I will construe any further posts from you, or others acting on your behalf, as harassment. Have a great day! --Badger Drink (talk) 02:54, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

ANI

You are the subject of a discussion on ANI. _D.Jameson 16:56, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 17:15, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

TGGWS

I'll talk a look later tonight. In principle you are right, sourced information cannot just be removed. It has to be pointed out why it is wrong. E.g. you can imagine that the source is not approppriate (like the E&E journal in case of global warming). But that requires some discussion on the talk page and a consensus there that the sourced information is not reliable. Count Iblis (talk) 18:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)