User talk:GoRight - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by GoRight (talk | contribs) at 03:49, 4 August 2008 (→A suggestion and a favor). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 03:49, 4 August 2008 by GoRight (talk | contribs) (→A suggestion and a favor)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

An Inconvenient Truth

Elhector has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling at someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:Smile}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Wow, that talk page is a warzone :-P Elhector 23:38, 26 October 2007 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Hi GoRight! As far as I can tell, you have either already violated Misplaced Pages's 3 revert rule, or are very close to a violation on An Inconvenient Truth. The rule is intended to limit unproductive reversions by restricting editors to no more than 3 reverts per article per 24 hours, where a "revert" is defined broadly as any edit that at least partially undoes another editors work. In particular, a revert for this rule does not have to restore an older version, and reverts that undo different edits still count towards the limit. If you did not already do so, please read this rule and abide by it - preferably in letter and in spirit. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 21:19, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Blocked

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 12 hours in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for violating the three-revert rule at An Inconvenient Truth. Please be more careful to discuss controversial changes or seek dispute resolution rather than engaging in an edit war. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below.

You've made at least 4 reverts in the past few hours (, , , , and a partial revert here which undid part of the prior edit). You express familiarity with WP:3RR here. It should be clear that there is no consensus supporting your proposed changes; please discuss them on the talk page after the block expires rather than continuing to reinsert them. MastCell 22:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

GoRight (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

Request reason:

I do not believe that my edits constitute reverts in the sense intended by WP:3RR. In each case I actively provided commentary in the discussion page concerning my rational for the changes thus demonstrating my willingness to cooperate with the community. Also, a close inspection of my edits will reveal that I was, in fact, making alternate wordings in an attempt to accommodate the views of others while still presenting the material I feel was relevant to the article. In addition, all of my material was clearly sourced and as such should be allowed in the article. If my interpretation above is incorrect, please clarify what actually constitutes a revert under WP:3R. Does changing the wording to accommodate the views of other editors also constitute a reversion? Is merely touching a given section of text considered a revert? For example, the item you list as a partial revert is did not restore any of the original content at all but was merely a new edit.

Decline reason:

The idea behind 3RR is to prevent people from repeated edits that make the same point or convey the same information. I have reviewed your edits and you repeatedly inserted references to anthropogenic leanings. Please be more careful and if you find yourself inserting or deleting similar language repeatedly, go to the talk page and discuss it there first.

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

-- But|seriously|folks 05:32, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

The Zen Garden Award

		Zen Garden Award for Infinite Patience
		I award this to GoRight for the infinite patience he has shown while attempting to improve the An Inconvenient Truth article and also for having to deal with the above ban because of his efforts. Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

You can move this award to your main user page or wherever else you like :-) Elhector 23:39, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I appreciate it. I haven't given up on the AIT page but have been focusing on other topics for a while. --GoRight 01:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Smoke and some sort of fire

There are traces of Singer's fire which others aren't willing to examine. I'm not in a hurry so it will take several days for the address of the info to reach me, then I'll probably have the search space reduced by 98%. (SEWilco 03:24, 10 November 2007 (UTC))

It wasn't much of a find. The existing material had enough information for web searches to reveal a pointer to the correct date. Even without knowing the exact date, the transcripts.tv date search feature allows browsing through the episodes during the period when the fires began. The latter didn't occur to me until after I'd found the exact date, as I wasn't trying hard to find the stuff and the trail to the exact date was obvious. (SEWilco 16:58, 14 November 2007 (UTC))

Understood, but still a great effort to preserve a piece of history. --GoRight 17:10, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

wp:3rr again

looks like you close to breaking the rule again if you not done so already so watch it on the article An Inconvenient TruthOo7565 18:41, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. I have been careful about which sections I am touching. I am done for now anyway. --GoRight 18:50, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks again, a second look on my part indicated that I had erred so I self-reverted. --GoRight 19:25, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

If I may... it seems there's an ongoing problem here. It was good of you to self-revert, but the underlying issue appears to be that you're making changes without consensus and thus being reverted by a number of different users. The point of WP:3RR is not to wait for 24 hours to expire and then keep going; it's to discuss these changes on the talk page before repeatedly re-inserting them. You will find peope willing to engage in dialog; if you hit a roadblock, you can always ask for a third opinion, request for comment, or mediation. But please consider holding off on repeatedly reverting without gaining some sort of consensus for your proposed changes, which appear quite controversial. MastCell 20:05, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I understand your point, however there are frequently some users who simply refuse to acknowledge valid points and thus use the discussion pages as a means of stonewalling any changes. If you actually take the time to read my comments on AIT I do try to compromise. I do attempt alternatives. But if even one user is determined not to let my change in I am totally blocked, and unfairly so.

I am following the rules. I am providing valid references from legitimate sources. Now given the subject matter sure there are people who won't agree with my perspective, in some cases you even seem to be one given your comment above. This is fine. We worked through the Singer page updates, right? But I had my comment on the WP:BLP/N regarding the Newsweek source for quite some time before I made my changes to force some action. I think that I would still be waiting for a reply on that point if I had not "boldly made the changes". How am I supposed to know that consensus has been reached when I get stonewalling silence in return to my points on the talk pages?

You were adamant that the Newsweek and Monbiot quotes were properly source and thus should not be deleted. No consensus had been reached there. I had not agreed. So now let us consider the edit that I self reverted. It has been discussed days ago. I have outstanding commentary in the talk page. The quote is from a notable commentator on Fox News. I was respecting the previous complaints of undue weight by replacing the AAAS quote (which was my addition in the first place) as well as a previous complaint regarding the AAAS article requiring a (free) subscription to read.

But after a couple of days of discussion and with other users supporting me my change is still stonewalled off the page with you talking about I need to reach consensus like I never even tried to do so. In my interaction with you you simply reverted my edits without so much as a howdy and I didn't feel we had a consensus over on the WP:BLP page. You simply instituted your favored option, but somehow I am at fault for doing the same? Will you now argue as fervently that properly attributed criticism should be allowed in on the AIT page as you did on the Singer page?

The quote itself should not even be that controversial. The only reason they object is because it is from someone they don't like. It is being censored not because it doesn't meet the criteria for inclusion but because they don't like the person who wrote it. Do I get that same veto power? No. So why do they?

I have a real problem with the way RealClimate is being used in this context. It is like wikipedia is their personal soapbox which allows them to use their scientific credentials to vanquish dissent on anything GW related, even on things that are NOT related to the science involved like their speculating on the ExxonMobil funding. They have no more credibility to speak about what funding arrangements ExxonMobil had with NSTA that the man in the moon. Yet they are climate scientists so we must all bow before them? I don't think so.

As you are no doubt aware (since you seem to be "watching" over me) I have taken that particular case to WP:BLP. Is this not exactly what you are suggesting? Getting independent help on the issue? Am I being beligerent in this respect? No. Go read my post there. I make it quite clear that I don't want to take sides and I don't want to single any specific group out, but that I have some concerns and here are some real world examples. Go read William Connolley's page and my discussion there. There may be a pointy stick or two but the substantive parts are very reasonable and well intentioned as I discuss there.

If I sound like I am venting it is because I am. Don't take it as an attack. I appreciate your taking the time to offer advice.

--GoRight 20:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I totally agree with the above. I also fought a long battle to change 1 word in that article a while back. The change wouldn't have really been a big deal, it only would have corrected a portion of the article to sound more NPOV and less like an attack on a group of people. I was stonewalled from the get go on that change without anyone providing a valid reason against the change. All reasons given fell along the lines of "I just don't like it". After some back and forth the change just kept getting reverted without any comment or discussion. I complained and was basically told that if i propose a change on a talk page and no one comments on it after 2 weeks that it's still not acceptable to make the change because "no consensus" was given for the change. Basicallly it's gotten to the point where if you be bold and just make an edit it will be reverted. What is worse is if you try to propose the change on the talk page your proposal will be flat ignored. After several weeks have been given for comments and suggestions to be made and you decide to make the edit because there is the appearance that no one cares or disagrees with the proposed change it just gets reverted without discussion. What it boils down to is that in a lot of articles (and An Inconvenient Truth is a prime example of this) there are groups of entrenched editors that have taken up ownership of articles and basically now have a pocket veto power over any proposed changes that they don't like or go against any preconceived notions that they may have. Given that the above is happening I would love for someone to come up with a way to get around this. Perhaps MastCell has a suggestion? Elhector 21:44, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not watching over you, but your talk page is still on my watchlist from the 3RR block and I noticed the above discussion. I'm happy to remove your page from my watchlist and not comment further if you don't feel it's likely to be productive, though - I'm not trying to harass you. I think you're editing in good faith, or I wouldn't even bother to mention it. I don't think you've ever been "belligerent"; in fact, I've been impressed with your civility, given how contentious global-warming articles can be.

I understand your concern about the fact that one stubborn user can stall change on an article. In fact, I've run up against this myself. But from an (admittedly somewhat cursory) glance at the page history at An Inconvenient Truth, it appeared you were not being reverted by one stubborn user, but by a number of users with real, good-faith concerns about your edits.

I think you're right to be bold and make a change first - no one needs to get, or give, proactive "approval" to make an edit. It's hard to know, in most cases, whether anyone will disagree with an edit until you make it. However, if the edit is reverted, then it starts to become incumbent to get some kind of discussion going and try to achieve consensus. This is summed up in WP:BRD, which is an essay but a pretty useful one. Mind you, I don't claim to be perfect in this regard - but I got the sense that even after being reverted by several users, you were a) engaging in discussion, which is great, and b) continuing to revert to your preferred version, which is not so great. That's all. If I've oversimplified the situation, then I apologize.

I don't feel that I simply instated "my favored version" of the Singer page - there were real BLP concerns which were addressed, including those of User:ATren. There was a feeling that ExxonSecrets was not a useful source from a BLP perspective, which I don't fully agree with in this context but can accept. There was a request for more and better sources, and we used the Newsweek article, which seemed more satisfactory to everyone than the prior sourcing. It seemed to me that User:ATren's concerns were addressed, and it seemed at least initially that yours had been as well, though apparently I was mistaken there.

How, and whether, to cite RealClimate or Steven Milloy at AIT is a thorny issue and one which I don't feel like getting involved in at the moment. I do think, however, that edit-warring over the material is a mistake and in the end is not going to accomplish what you want it to. That was the point of my note above, to steer you in other directions - again, based on a fairly quick skim of the page history at AIT, so apologies if I've misinterpreted. MastCell 21:24, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

I was venting as I mentioned above, so no problem. I don't mind your offering advice, it is appreciated (even if it doesn't sound like it from the vent above). I don't blame you for avoiding the RC/Milloy discussions. Maybe I am more partisan that I think, but I honestly am only seeking to have both sides fairly represented in this debate. Cheers. --GoRight 21:33, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

While I hate to prolong a discussion like this on a user talk page, I feel it's worth noting that GoRight is being railroaded here. Some Pro-AGW editors (I don't want to name names) simply revert edits they don't like but refuse to discuss their reasoning on talk pages. AIT is a perfect example of this. So what seems like a number of editors relying on consensus is actually at times a handful of editors refusing to listen to the other side and just attempting to bully the edits away. I can reinstate GoRight's edits at times but I choose not to get in edit wars and rather I discuss things on the talk page. The fact that a few people are reverting his edits rather than one doesn't mean those few are in the right. Oren0 22:11, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

No, of course it doesn't. But it does mean that continuing to reinsert the material isn't going to be effective. That's all I was getting at. MastCell 00:46, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Reinserting it won't be effective but continually reverting it will be effective. Yeah, that's balanced... Elhector 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Pielke jr. and sr.

Hi GR! I get the impression that you are not aware about the difference between Roger A. Pielke (sr), who is an accomplished meterologist with a nuanced opinion about climate change (roughly "CO2 is a major part of global warming, but there are other aspects, we don't understand all the processes, and anyways, local effects are much more important and much or influenced by other anthropogenic factors") and Roger A. Pielke (Jr), his son, a political scientists who mostly agrees with the science of the IPCC, but is sceptical about mitigation. --Stephan Schulz 19:31, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. I was aware that there was a jr. and a sr. but I never had occasion to dig further than that. I was mostly familiar with Pielke Jr. from the CIRES website. Now that you point out the distinction and rereading the description for the CIRES website, my faux pas on the AIT talk page is obvious. I assume that when WC was arguing to keep Pielke off the list of skeptics he was actually discussing sr? Would that be correct? --GoRight 21:06, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, so far we have always been discussing the older Pielke on "List of scientists...". The younger one never came up, and I'm not certain he passes the "paper in the natural sciences" criterion. --Stephan Schulz 21:15, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Looking again, he might pass (for his hurricane paper), but he does not seem to disagree with the core IPCC statements. --Stephan Schulz 21:42, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

The whole "Controversial" thing on the An Inconvenient Truth article

I saw you tried to add the controversial line back to the intro of the article. Of course Raul654 has swiftly reverted your edit... There was a very lengthy discussion about this not to long ago. The conversation is in the talk page archives at this point. Take a look at it. Basically the issue came to an end because we didn't have enough support at the time to keep it in there even though we more then proved that this was true. The same players that are involved with keeping the Milloy quote out were the ones leading the rally to keep the controversial line out as well. They're way to into protecting the reputation of the film at this point so good luck :-) This all just goes back to my point about a few editors and admins feeling like they own that article... Elhector 21:15, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds familiar. I am not surprised and it is not just the AIT page that they try to systematically dilute the skeptics on. I see you noticed their little rebellion against having to actually vote. The way I look at it though, we have 3 for, 0 against, and 4-5 who abstain! Not that the vote carries any weight. I can't understand why they don't want to be tagged as having a position, how whimpy is that? Well, after a few more days we'll close the vote and then any of the fors will have to decide to either drop it or take it to mediation. How do you feel about mediation? --GoRight 21:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

To be honest with you I don't think it's that they don't want to be tagged as having a position. I think it's more along the lines of they see our position as fringe and they see themselves as the mainstream view so why even bother taking us seriously. They're of the opinion that they run the article and are the articles "protectors" so they do not have to participate in the vote since in there eyes there is nothing really to vote on. Know what I'm saying? As for mediation I think it's good idea at this point and probably the only way left to resolve this. Were you thinking about doing an request for comments first and then going from there? I'll definitely participate in any mediation. Count me in :-) Elhector 22:01, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm just thinking of following the usual escalation process, so if RFC would be most appropriate then that would be next. Yes, I understand your point and agree that is clearly part of it. To some extent if they are the "majority" they may have some case for it but I think that they go overboard in cutting criticism. Especially in a case like this when the quote isn't even criticism for the most part. They just don't like Milloy. And heaven forbid that the commoners want to have a say. Just my opinion though. --GoRight 22:17, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AGF

Will you please start adhering to this one? Your latest comments, accusing me of wanting "it both ways" with RC and your harp about ExxonMobil, must be addressing someone other than me - because i'm not using RC for anything You are getting things mixed up. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:25, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. Possibly. Where do you actually stand on these points? Is RC qualified to comment on the NSTA situation regarding ExxonMobil funding given that they clearly are NOT experts on the funding arrangements of the NSTA nor do they have first hand knowledge of that arrangement? Do you consider RC to be WP:RS simply because they have relevant publications or would you argue that they should not be afforded such consideration?

As for adhering to WP:AGF, I do. Where have I not? However, I believe that my requesting the same of you would be equally appropriate under the circumstances. --GoRight (talk) 17:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm starting to get tired of this.. Let me quote from WP:TALK:

Avoid excessive markup: It undermines a reasoned argument with the appearance of force through Italic text, Bolded text, and especially CAPITAL LETTERS, which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!! Italics, however, can be usefully employed for a key word, to distinguish quoted text from new text and, of course, book titles etc.

Some of us are old users of the internet - and bold face is excessive markup. It jumps out of the page, and distracts from your point. Just as shouting does. Italics on the other hand, both emphasises the part that you want to turn attention to, and at the same time is calm to read.

Had your comments been one-time occurances, then i'd overlook it - but its not (for instance - where you are definitely not assuming good faith). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:28, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Having re-read your quote above from WP:TALK it occurs to me that this actually bears out my point below, as well as in . The phrase "which are considered SHOUTING, and RANTING!!!!!" is clearly modifying "especially CAPITAL LETTERS" not everything in the list. Right? Nor was my markup excessive as it was merely highlighting the most significant portion of the text being quoted as I pointed out in my reply. Drawing one's attention to the important points being made is not the same as being excessive. --GoRight (talk) 00:14, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Regardless of what that particular sentence in WP:TALK says bolding is not generally considered shouting whereas ALL CAPS is. This is especially true for the case we are discussing because the part in bold is clearly part of a quote and not even my own statement. It should be obvious to the reader that I am merely trying to highlight the relevant part of the statement in context and not shouting. You prefer italics for highlighting, I prefer bold. If we are to respect WP:AGF then I would argue that your continued pressing of this point is just such a violation given my explanation above.

As for , I clearly addressed that point . Do you consider my explanation to not be in good faith? Doesn't that sort of mean that you are not WP:AGF yourself? Since you have opened this discussion I'll take the opportunity to list a few places where I believe that your adherence to WP:AGF was perhaps a bit in question:

wherein you imply that I was intentionally biasing my searches.
the phrasing of which doesn't sound to be particularly in line with WP:AGF.
This one seems pretty cut and dry.
As does this one (i.e. your claim that I am merely trying to divert the issue).
And this one as well.
This one is perhaps borderline, although it is made directly after I have provided an explanation for my actions.
Then we come to all of these places where you seem to be of the opinion that I "haven't read the court documents", , , don't seem to be very WP:AGF either.
and this one where I have "biased" facts seems to be neither WP:AGF nor WP:CIV.

My point is simply that I am treating you just as WP:AGF and WP:CIV as I am being treated. No more, no less. When I note any changes in these respects in your commentary to me I will be happy to adjust mine to match. In any event, I disagree that either of us are actually violating WP:AGF or WP:CIV in any of these examples. Just for the record. --GoRight (talk) 19:36, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

...and thus, the whole world goes blind. Not that I grant the premise, but I'm surprised that your ambition ends at the level of your opponents' conduct.--Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:44, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

This should not surprise you in the least. You have read enough of my commentary and argument to recognize that I strive primarily for what I perceive to be a fair and appropriately balanced treatment of this issue. I feel that many of the GW related pages are skewed significantly in this respect in favor of those who hold the mainstream views. I agree that you and KDP may not agree with my perspective but that does not make my perspective any less WP:AGF. Agreed?

I'm was talking about your aims, but about your methods, of course. To each his own, I guess. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:03, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

WARNING for KDP: Do NOT follow SS's link above as there is lots of bolding on that page and you will, presumably, be horribly offended. :) --GoRight (talk) 19:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes - i'm terribly wounded and have to go to bed to make sure my eyes don't come apart. ;-) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Have a good night. I'll keep myself busy while you are sleeping! :) Given the above discussion shall we try to effect a truce of some sort on anything resembling a pointy stick? --GoRight (talk) 20:35, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

William M. Connolley's talk page

Re - please don't insert your comments above others. As for formal warnings, you've done quite enough of that. I've removed your comments as unhelpful; spare me the tedia about censorship William M. Connolley (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Inserting that one comment was intended to make it clear to whom I was responding. This is common practice as far as I can tell and the indentation made it clear that my comment was separate from the others.

Your deletion of that discussion is duly noted, as is this one which was performed without the benefit of any response but with an edit summary that read "AIT:Talk - rm waste of time, again", not very in line with WP:CIV IMHO or the wikipedia guidelines which require me to notify you on your talk page before issuing an RFC on you personally. Since the AIT matter has been resolved I have not pursued the matter further.

On the issue of censorship, I believe that the removal of my comments, all of which were WP:CIV, from both your talk page and the AIT talk page speaks for itself on that account. --GoRight (talk) 18:56, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

We might as well note this removal as well, also with the edit summary "rv: no, lets not". I can see why RealClimate is gaining such a reputation for censoring discussion that they find "inconvenient". You seem to be practicing the same thing right here on wikipedia. Your edits speak volumes in this regard. You seek to present a carefully crafted world view by simply eliminating from view that with which you disagree. This speaks to one's integrity, objectivity, and intellectual honesty IMHO. Just something for you to consider. --GoRight (talk) 19:12, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Reconstruction of RealClimate discussion from William M. Connolley's talk:

I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish". This is not in line with WP:AGF nor WP:CIV. I have pointed these types of things out to you repeatedly on the AIT page where you have repeatedly reverted my edits on the talk page no less as "trash".

I note that on the issue of Steven Milloy's comment in AIT your cadre of followers repeatedly pointed to Roger Pielke, Jr. as a good source for political issues. Now they seem to be referring to him as a mere blogger and his commentary as random blog entries from a political scientist. This latter point being particularly ironic since we are discussing a political issue. The disdain just rolls off of those comments. I find this dichotomy of opinion between the two pages to be somewhat self-serving to say the least. As is the dichotomy of arguments presented on the issue of "controversial" between the AIT and TGGWS pages.

Let us just see what turns up from outside opinions on these issues, shall we?

--GoRight (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I think you're confused. I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT . On RC, I called your edits absurd, as they were. I don't recall calling any of your edits "trollish". You have a chance to make a +ve contribution to wiki; at the moment you're failing, and the response to you is becoming laughter, as a highly respected contributor like Stephan has pointed out. Your constant reference to AGF is not a substitute for sensible behaviour (help me here folks... where was that essay about calling on AGF too much?) William M. Connolley (talk) 16:14, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

"and the response to you is becoming laughter", and I assume since we are discussing issues of WP:AGF and WP:CIV that you feel this comment meets with the intent of WP:CIV. You all, collectively, make quite the habit of making comments which, while admittedly mild so as to avoid an egregious violation, clearly serve to create an decidedly unWP:CIV environment. I respectfully refer you all to WP:CIV#Examples as a refresher. Is it your contention that I am abusing the clear meaning expressed there when I simply and point out that you are creating such an uncivil environment and do so in a non-aggressive manner? --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AAGF. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Not to stick my nose in (but I will), I think it's good for us to try to assume good faith as much as possible. I believe GoRight is misinformed, but I do believe he is acting in good faith. However, assuming good faith does not mean that (a) information is assumed to be correct or helpful, (b) no POV is present (we all have them), or (c) that the assumption cannot be later proven false by the actions of the editor.

I find that a lot of editors who complain about AGF (and I'm not referring to you, William) use it to justify bad behavior on their part.

I think there have been a lot of hostile responses to GoRight, and although I understand the frustration, and am definitely not the perfect editor myself in regards to being completely civil, I do think that we should be as polite as possible when pointing out to him where he is mistaken. Ben Hocking 16:26, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

William's looking for WP:AAGF, which is quite applicable here. (Note especially "Carbonite's Law.") The social norms of Misplaced Pages are such that it usually helps your case to pretend you believe others are acting in good faith even when they aren't. Raymond Arritt (talk) 17:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it is quite obvious to me as well as anyone with a perceptive eye for such matters that you all adhere to this principle on a regular basis. And if your rhetorical commentary in edit summaries is any indication, you likewise seem to adhere to WP:ABF as well (and yes I read the notice box at the top of the page :) ). I prefer to keep the cards on the table, as it were. Open debate and the light of truth is in the best interests of wikipedia IMHO. --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I will remind you all that this ~~discussion~~ warring of WP:AGF began with KDP here. I view this as an obvious attempt to build some sort of "case" against me by alleging that I am not editing in good faith in violation of WP:AGF. Since I wish to maintain a clean record here at wikipedia it seems prudent that I should likewise take note of any instances of such "transgressions" and formally notify the appropriate individual of such so that they can clarify the situation if I am mistaken. This seems the most honest and direct approach.

I commend you, Mr. Connolley, for having assembled a cadre of such fine and respectable editors who so readily come to your aid and serve to reinforce your views so effectively. It must be a comfort to you to not have to try and support your positions all on your own like so many editors who hold views contrary to your own seem to have to do. In the end it all comes down to numerical superiority, as you are no doubt aware. The GW history and talk pages seem to be riddled with examples where this rings true over and over again. --GoRight (talk) 18:30, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

~~Let us at least note your removal of my comments from this section, the discussion of which is occurring here. --GoRight (talk) 19:02, 28 November 2007 (UTC)~~

3RR

I'd suggest that you should be a little more carefull - your latest edits to Realclimate , was a partial revert to earlier deleted content. Which means that you in effect got over 3RR. Please be more carefull. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:25, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes you are quite right. I apologize. I meant the edit in good faith as should have been evident. I would self-revert but it is now moot as other editors have already removed the material. I appreciate your not making a major issue out of this instance. Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 23:21, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

On RFC's

Could we stop commenting on postings here? It amounts to trying to undue influence the commenters and if the bait is taken - lead to long discussions that have no place there? --Kim D. Petersen 16:17, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

NB: regarding your british survey - you might want to take a look at the results before putting to much faith into your interpretation of what it means. (for instance 70% of those surveyed thought that the government should impose laws to ensure reductions). --Kim D. Petersen 16:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I find your request interesting in consideration of the fact that the comment you are referring to above was a direct response to a comment from yourself. Please note that other regulars involved in the debate from both sides have likewise commented in that section. Regardless, I whole heartedly agree with your point, as evidenced by my handling of similar issues in the TGGWS and RealClimate RfCs. I have taken steps to address your concern on the AIT RfC as well moving forward.

I will accept on good faith that your "we" above applies to both of us and not just me, unless there is a Misplaced Pages policy or guideline about my personally commenting within the RfC since I raised it. If there is a guideline that prevents my commenting while allowing say, your commenting, within the RfCs please point me to it as I wish to adhere to the rules of the site.

Finally, with respect to the British Poll, (1) the number of people who support regulation is irrelevant to the points being raised, (2) your statistic still leaves 30% disagreeing or undecided which is well within the realm of being controversial, and (3) I was careful to directly quote the text of the article so that the statement could not be construed to have been my personal opinion (as opposed to that of the article's author). --GoRight 17:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

You can find it as interesting as you want - since my comment was a comment on a comment (can you see the what i'm driving at?). And i can assure you that it was meant in good faith. I could see that this would end up with the usual bickering. --Kim D. Petersen 21:19, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough. As I have said above I agree with your point and have taken what I thought was appropriate action. Do you at least agree with that much? --GoRight 21:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

RealClimate (from William M. Connolley talk page)

I'm leaving this here, in case you want it. When you can manage to simultaneously add "I will attempt to use smaller and simpler sentences for you in the future" and "Are you willing to work together to try and get to the point where there is a parity of good faith between us?" I think the pointlessness has become only too obvious William M. Connolley 19:17, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I would agree. Actually I said as much a while back but I continued in the hope you would share my desire to improve our relations. While you repeatedly pressed me for a yes or no answer in a matter of trivia I have simply asked you to respond similarly to a question of direct importance to the level of civility being expressed on Misplaced Pages and your refusal to give a simple answer to a simple question serves as a profound indicator of the futility of which you speak.

On my response to your request that I be less prolix what else am I supposed to do but use smaller and simpler sentences? Is this not, in effect, exactly what you were asking me to do? I find it confounding that you ask me to take a certain action and then when I agree to take that action you complain about that. --GoRight 19:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Let us just see what turns up from outside opinions on these issues, shall we?

--GoRight (talk) 15:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:AAGF. Cheers! -- User:RyanFreisling @ 16:22, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

I find that a lot of editors who complain about AGF (and I'm not referring to you, William) use it to justify bad behavior on their part.

Thanks to you both William M. Connolley (talk) 17:35, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Having considered the comments above carefully, as well as those which have been removed, I wish to make my admittedly general concerns more clear. I believe that in the face of some of the characterizations, taunts, and jeers which have been leveled at me by a rather consistent group of editors, yourself included, that I have remained generally WP:CIV throughout our interactions, with perhaps the commentary on this specific section being a bit of an exception. In that respect I will accept in good faith your characterization of those comments as being "unhelpful" as being correct.

My concern is that the taunts and jeers contribute to a generally unWP:CIV environment overall. I understand that you (collectively) may find my positions to be not in line with your own but I don't think that terms such as "trash", "trollish", or "absurd" will help to improve our relations. That is my only complaint, if you even want to call it a complaint. It is more an observation and intended to be well intentioned constructive criticism at this point. I hope that you will accept it as such.

As a side note, you make reference above to "+ve". I am unfamiliar with this term, could you please explain its meaning and use? --GoRight 20:20, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Please clarify whether you accept you were in error above William M. Connolley 20:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

To which part? I would ask the same of you, BTW. This is clearly an attempt on my part to improve our on-going relations. Are you willing to do likewise? --GoRight 21:23, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm all for good relations, excess complaints about CIV aren't conducive. But lets sort out the errors first: I mean the para starting "I think you're confused. I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT" William M. Connolley 21:28, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On the specifics of exactly when and where you referred to my edits and/or comments as "trash", "amounting to trolling", "absurd", and whether or not you consider "the response to is becoming laughter" is all adequately captured in the histories of the relevant pages. If I erred above with respect to the RC comments then I stand corrected. The details of when and where are not important. The characterizations, taunts, and jeers are important for the reasons described above and as discussed in WP:CIV. I am not some delicate flower that cannot take a taunt or a jeer, but if we are to live by the letter AND the spirit of WP:CIV they should be minimized. If I have unfairly labeled a specific instance as being WP:CIV in error, I apologize for such. I do not, however, apologize for simply following the stated rules and guidelines for how to respond in such cases as I understand them.

I believe that the letter and the spirit of WP:CIV says that taunts and jeers when applied on a regular basis is considered detrimental to the community. As such, my pointing them out when they occur in an otherwise civil manner should not be considered a problem and in fact should be considered proper conduct in the spirit of WP:CIV.

I wish to try and find a less pointed and contentious style of interaction (from both sides). In that light and consistent with the spirit of WP:CIV I agree to be more discerning in pointing out infractions if you will attempt to be more judicious in your references to my comments and/or edits. --GoRight 21:54, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If I erred above with respect to the RC comments then I stand corrected... sorry guv, not good enough. Delete the initial "If" and I'll be happy. You did err - or rather, I assert that you did, and I'd like you to be honest enough to admit it, or to defend yourself. Please note that putting quotes around something, like "trollish", means you believe that exact thing was said. Now, you've managed 5 pointless repetitions of CIV, when what is required is honesty and clarity William M. Connolley 22:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I not trying to be evasive here. I believe that my post basically accepted that if I had erred I stood corrected (i.e. I agreed). If it is important to you for some reason that I explicitly agree with "I said your comments were "a waste of time amounting to trolling" on t:AIT . On RC, I called your edits absurd, as they were. I don't recall calling any of your edits "trollish"." Fine, I so agree. But to focus on these details is to miss the larger point.

Points of clarification.

I also do not mean anything specific by my use of WP:CIV above other than to be extremely precise in my meaning. Each such instance above could be switched with the more informal and less precise word "civil". While my usage above may make the text appear more aggressive that was not the intent. The intent above was to convey that I was meaning precisely the definition of "civil" as spelled out in WP:CIV, nothing more. I apologize if this editing style seems offensive and I will attempt to write in a less "lawyer like" fashion (see discussion of double quotes below) moving forward on this particular issue.
My use of double quotes above is not meant to convey exact wording but is rather used in a manner comparable to when the High Court Ruling on AIT uses the term "errors". Although the confusion is understandable in this context. For our purposes here, "trollish" means simply that you referred to my comments as being trollish in nature. I don't think I am being deceptive when I interpret "amounting to trolling" (literally in this case) to mean trollish in nature (i.e. "trollish"). The same would apply to my other quoted texts above and I apologize for any misunderstanding on this point.

It is not my intent to mischaracterize your statements and, as I said, the exact wording and context are adequately recorded in the relevant edits of the relevant pages if for some reason it should become necessary to be more precise. My point is not concerned with the exact wording being used, but rather the nature and the implications thereof. --GoRight 23:08, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So many words, and yet you're still not there. You're now down to If it is important to you for some reason that I explicitly agree... which isn't acceptable, because once again you've prefixed it with If. You use too many words: lets try to make it simple: you complained I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish" - this is an error on your part: yes or no? William M. Connolley 23:13, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

What part of "Fine, I so agree" isn't meeting with your satisfaction? This statement is not conditional in the above text.

I must protest your characterization of my edits on the RealClimate article as "trollish" - this is an error on your part: yes or no? Yes, that was an error on my part. It should have read: I must protest your characterization of my comments on the AIT talk page as "trollish", or "amounting to trolling" to be more precise.

Is there a point to this trip 'round the Mulberry bush? --GoRight 23:40, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

I am rather unsure why you are bothering. Your protest is rejected. +ve == positive William M. Connolley 17:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The spirit of WP:CIV and WP:DISPUTE suggest that I should make an attempt to maintain better relations in circumstances such as this. I believe that I have now made a substantial effort to do so but it appears that the desire to do so is not reciprocated. Please correct me if I am incorrect on this point. --GoRight 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I feel absolutely sure that there is not parity of good faith between us William M. Connolley 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I would agree given your behavior, as noted below, wherein you accuse me of having "pretended agreement" when the record clearly bears out my statement. But this is a digression from the question I asked. Are you willing to work together to try and get to the point where there is a parity of good faith between us? --GoRight 17:06, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to work hard to get to the point where your faith is as good as mine. But keep trying. Already there is progress - you haven't mentioned CIV/AGF for a while. But the mulberry stuff was a step backwards. A hint: avoid digressions; your prose is too prolix already William M. Connolley 17:12, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how the mulberry stuff goes to good faith, it was merely a reference to the fact that I was here trying to patch things over and you were decidedly giving me the run around on trivia rather than addressing the larger point.

Contrast that to you making the following proclamation (your exact words): "So is your use of "Another good faith attempt..." in the edit comments. All edits are assumed to be in good faith, unless evidence suggests otherwise. Calling them IGF doesn't help. Don't do it." Then less than one day later and in the very same article you accuse me of "pretending agreement" when in fact I had stated "limited agreement" based on the agreement reached, through substantive discussion on the discussion page, with MastCell.

I apologize if you find my text too prolix. I will attempt to use smaller and simpler sentences for you in the future.

EDIT: Oh, and to borrow a quote from you above: "So many words, and yet you're still not there." Are you willing to work together to try and get to the point where there is a parity of good faith between us? An simple yes or no will be sufficient. --GoRight 17:28, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

I must now formally protest your characterization of my clearly documented claim of a limited agreement (based on my interactions on the talk page with the only editor, MastCell, actually discussing the issue in any depth) as being a "pretended agreement" (your exact wording in this case). This seems to be decidedly outside the realm of WP:AGF. I make note of the fact that your revert to discussion ratio seems rather high on this matter. Could you please either engage in the substantive discussion or refrain from simply engaging in edit warring behavior? --GoRight 18:29, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Noted; rejected William M. Connolley 21:13, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

TGGWS additions

It would be best not to keep pushing the additions -- while I think there is some valuable information in them, a lot of it is poorly written (spelling and grammar) or unsourced. Besides, the changes are too widespread to enforce in a lump-sum edit. It would take a lot of effort, and it's certain that not all of them would make it, but the changes would have a better chance of survival in the article if they were discussed one at a time. ~ S0CO 18:13, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

My revert was only to counter Raul's drive by revert, a common practice with him, to give the author a chance to argue his points. I agree with your assessment but I disagree with Raul's tactics. If Raul wants to argue the point let him argue it. SS at least left a minor comment in the edit summary. This is a case of not biting the newcomers, IMHO. --GoRight 18:18, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

"better chance of survival in the article if they were discussed one at a time." And this goes to the heart of the matter. Neither SS or Raul attempted to engage on the points as the author indicated they should do. Instead they prefer to slash and burn without regard to the other party. They simply use their numerical superiority to overwhlem the newcomers. I am simply seeking to counter that effect where I believe it is being unfairly applied. --GoRight 18:22, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please raise the points on the TGGWS talk page. With an endlessly argued over article which has reached a fairly stable state, largescale, unreferenced changes that clearly promote a particular point of view will be reverted. However I believe that essentially your intention is to make the article better. While I think Misplaced Pages is correct to reflect that TGGWS has been proved to be incorrect about several of its most important scientific claims (and that's very well referenced), there may be parts of the article which stray from NPOV. At the risk of opening Pandora's box, try to persuade me! I would like to believe that you can be a productive Wikipedian, even (perhaps especially) on issues where your views are in the minority. Some battles may be easier to win than changing the word "controversial". What people find frustrating is when arguments are endlessly repeated with no new material. Find something which hasn't been argued over endlessly over before, and you may find people more willing to discuss it. --Merlinme (talk) 17:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

To be honest- having reviewed the edits again- there isn't a whole lot in them I think is worth keeping. And really the editor could have expected there to be resistance to making them. I think it's strongest on what the programme actually said. Large parts of criticism of the programme have been deleted without any justification. Large parts of the intro have been rewritten, including spelling mistakes, and deleting major contributors (why?). I don't remember anything about "coherance and moral imperative" of environmentalists; it may be there, but I'd like to see a quote. If it's not there, then it's editorialising. Why has incorrectly labelling the time axis been replaced by the less precise "typo"? The edit claims that the graph was replaced by the IPCC graph, which I think is simply incorrect- if I'm wrong, I need to see a reference. Why was the paragraph about Eigil-Christensen (who Durkin still mentions in articles) removed? On top of various spelling mistakes, you can understand why people were sceptical. I would probably have reverted it myself. There may be good material in there somewhere- but it needs to be argued for, and referenced. I can understand why you want to resist reversion of pro-TGGWS edits, but you would probably be taken more seriously if you argued for the more defensible changes. --Merlinme (talk) 18:25, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I did not mean for my single revert to cause so much controversy. As stated above I was not endorsing the content so much as rejecting Raul's drive-by tactics, something I myself have run into in the past. Note that I have left Stephan's second revert stand since I consider my countering of Raul's un-noteworthy revert to have restored a level playing field between Stephan and Wolfpatra who I then invited to discuss the matter on the talk page per wikipedia policy. If we adhere to WP:AGF we are to assume that Wolfpatra made his edits in good faith. I therefore consider Stephan's (and more specifically Raul's) wholesale reverts without so much as a by your leave to be inappropriate. If they are to undo the assumed good faith work of others they should be required to state specifically why they object and allow the original author to defend their position before their revert stands. An outcome which allows for the efforts of others to be simply wiped clean without any discussion is against the letter and the spirit of WP:AGF and WP:TALK, IMHO of course.

If Wolfpatra fails to defend his points successfully on the talk page I have no problem with them being reverted. --GoRight (talk) 18:54, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure what you want here- the original revert had an edit comment with something like "revert unsourced whitewashing", which seems reasonable to me. When an article is replaced with something obviously worse, there's no onus on a reverter to provide any justification beyond an edit comment. Whoever else watches the page can see the diff and quickly agree (or disagree). It's up to the editor who made unsourced changes with spelling mistakes to justify them at that point. --Merlinme (talk) 08:24, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

"Whitewashing" is editorializing in the comments and doesn't foster a WP:CIV environment overall. I made one revert and gave a reason why. As I have stated above my problem was not with Stephan so much as Raul in this case because of his drive-by revert without a comment. If Wolfpatra doesn't bother to defend his edits on the talk page then Stephan's last revert will stand just as you want. I, personally, am not looking for much in the way of modified behavior here except for (1) people such as Raul to stop reverting without stating why, and (2) we maintain a WP:CIV environment by toning down the "whitewashing" comments. If you feel I have over reacted in this instance I respect that and I hereby apologize. --GoRight (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting global warming studies and such

I have compiled a list from some info I found on the internet. You may find it interesting. The list I created is here. Elhector (talk) 21:30, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Scibaby

Hey, User:Scibaby is the most prolific sockpuppeteer in the history of wikipedia. On his user page you should find the list of his alter egos. Brusegadi (talk) 02:09, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Wow, 213 accounts and counting. Impressive tenacity. --GoRight (talk) 02:10, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

POV pushing and BLP vio

If you keep up the disruption by both attacking an editor and misrepresenting the substance of an article to do so, your account will be blocked. It is a violation of WP:BLP and it is dishonest. Do not make an edit like this one again. R. Baley (talk) 08:02, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

You didn't just insert criticism, you blatantly misrepresented the substance of the article in order to do so. I am well aware of WP:BLP (thank-you for directing me to it again and explaining it to me) . . .I am also aware of WP:Civil. And you have responded by what many would consider an attack on WMC at my talk page (it's the "unsavory" bit, for anyone else following along). Any further comments along those lines will lead to a block. If you re-insert the material (in the original link above), you will also be blocked. R. Baley (talk) 14:05, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I did not misrepesent anything. Given that the article in question has already been whitewashed in his bio, deleting my edits is a prime example of WP:UNDUE. It is your actions which have resulted in a clearly one-sided representation of the content of the article, not mine. My edits restore appropriate balance. If you don't accept a direct quote from the article (again, how is a direct quote a misrepresentation?) perhaps we can paraphrase the key points, to wit: In March, 2005 Mr. Connolley was accused of pushing what was termed his singular and narrow views on climate science by by systematically removing any point of view that did not agree with his, for which he received a one-revert-a-day parole.

This is merely a statement of fact as reported in a article. It is stated in a neutral POV per Misplaced Pages standards. The fact that this occured is undeniable so I see no basis on which you can continue to block its inclusion in the article. --GoRight (talk) 15:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Replied at my talk page. R. Baley (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Talk:Global warming political cartoon

I took the liberty of removing a political cartoon posted by another editor and a comment by you about it. I don't think this line of discussion was helping. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 00:31, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough. I have no objection. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Solomon's article on the Singer article

Re: your recent edit to Fred Singer - Solomon's article has been discussed on the talk page, see Talk:Fred_Singer#A_new_blog_says_this_article_is_being_censored. It is naval gazing, and is not to be included in the article. Do not re-add it. Raul654 (talk) 03:20, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

You need to check your facts. The article cited was not discussed on the talk page, at least not at the reference you have provided. Regardless of the opinions expressed there, the edit is properly sourced and should stay in the article. You can hardly argue that it is not relevant to the article. --GoRight (talk) 03:30, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Due to your single minded pursuit to in some way attack WMC, if you add the same (or similar) material 'anywhere as you did to the Singer article you will be blocked. R. Baley (talk) 03:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I'm not going to play this game. I've started a discussion about your disruptive editing on the administrator's noticeboard. Raul654 (talk) 03:43, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Fine with me. I added an entry on the admin notices board since I didn't see yours. --GoRight (talk) 04:09, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

naval or navel? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, without a bit more context this makes no sense. Please explain. --GoRight (talk) 20:12, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

naval gazing William M. Connolley (talk) 20:51, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

And to what specifically are you referring? Is this just a general inquiry or are you basing this on a specific action or topic? --GoRight (talk) 21:01, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

:-) William M. Connolley (talk) 21:07, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Resetting the indent:

OK, so you are referring to Raul654's misspelling, presumably because you feel this is an activity that I am engaged in? :-)

I never really understood the phrase "navel gazing" to be quite honest. So you feel that I am spending my time fruitlessly and without legitimate purpose or something? Perhaps so given my recent smack downs, but I am not one to give up easily.

Look, on the whole topic of the Solomon pieces and so forth in recent days I know that this will be hard to believe but it truly isn't personal. There is no question that you have made great contributions to Misplaced Pages and deserve some level of respect because of it, and while I don't expect you to agree I honestly feel that you and some of your companions are over zealous in your policing of the GW pages (and I mean policing from your POV, obviously, which is the whole point).

I can honestly say that I respect you for having strong convictions and your tenacity at defending them, which I view as a good thing, but I also wish that you would extend the same courtesy to those with whom you disagree. You can respect people and simply agree to disagree and allow other points of view to be put forth, you know. It isn't about crushing your opponents at all costs. This, again, is the crux of my complaint and thus the impetus for my actions. --GoRight (talk) 21:28, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh dear. I'm sorry, I've been far too cryptic while just lightly amusing myself. All I was doing was noting Rauls homophone (slightly prompted by the earlier ). It has absolutely no bearing on any other disagreements at all and is no comment on your behavior. I thought that was obvious but obviously it wasn't, so I apologise for the irritation this must have caused, which was none of my purpose. As for Solomon... are we in disagreement there? I didn't think so, but I get into so many fights that sometimes I forget. BTW, if you're interested in beating back the evil left-wing hordes, you might be interested in Atomic bombings of Japan as a form of state terrorism and Allegations of state terrorism by the United States William M. Connolley (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I apologize for reading too much into it then. For once you haven't succeeded in irritating me, however, hence my offer of an Olive Branch of sorts even if it wasn't completely unconditional. As for Solomon you are correct, we haven't directly crossed paths there. I had assumed some of my recent activity might have caught your notice in passing but apparently not, I know that you have your fingers in a lot of pies as it were. It must be getting late there, have a good night. --GoRight (talk) 22:04, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

If you re-add Solomon's post to the Singer article, I'm going to block you. Consider this your final warning on the subject. Raul654 (talk) 15:45, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Solomon's Op/Ed is a perfectly acceptable source as has been discussed extensively, see . And please stop with your abusive threats and stalking. --GoRight (talk) 15:53, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Your comments on the topic do not a consensus make. Other people have said it does not belong. Since your return, you have been disrupting numerous articles with your edit warring, and it stops now. Raul654 (talk) 15:56, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? Where am I being disruptive? I am attempting to make positive contributions to the articles I am editing. The fact that they might conflict with your personal POV, which you are trying to enforce here with threats, does not make them disruptive. As for edit warring, I am not edit warring as you claim. Today's contribution was substantively different from my previous version as you are well aware, and it was specifically designed to address the concerns regarding attacks on WMC. This version contains nothing that can be considered and attack on anyone while clearly making the salient point that a WP:RS has called into question the validity of how Singer is represented in his BLP, taken as a whole. This is a legitimate criticism of the article and whitewashing as you are attempting to do now is simply your way of pushing your POV, through threats and intimidation. --GoRight (talk) 16:16, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Disruptive? Where am I being disruptive? - Pretty much every edit you have made since you came back.

Again, in your opinion and according to your personal POV. Many of my edits enjoy support from other users. That you fail to recognize that doesn't make it not so. Seem here for one such case: . In this case the change I am defending wasn't even my change even though I agree with it. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I am attempting to make positive contributions to the articles I am editing. - You have failed. Badly. And wasted a lot of good contributors' time in the process.

Again, in your opinion and according to your personal POV. Have you noticed a trend yet? --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

The fact that they might conflict with your personal POV, which you are trying to enforce here with threats, does not make them disruptive. - The fact your claims don't agree with reality makes them disruptive. The fact that the fringe earthquake claims you were trying to insert into the global warming article violated Misplaced Pages policy regarding the sourcing of science articles (as defined by the arbitration committee in the pseudoscience case) makes you disruptive. The fact that when this was pointed out to you, you apparently didn't bother to read the arbcom decision that was quoted - that makes you disruptive. The fact that you are trying to insert a hit-piece by an ex-Wikipedian into WMC's and Fred Singer's articles - that makes you disruptive. In short, you are doing nothing useful here, but you are causing a lot of disruption. Perhaps you should head over to Conservapedia, where reality takes a back seat to ideology - I think you'd find the atmosphere better for you.

When were you elected the judge of what matches reality? I don't recall that memo coming across my desk.

Calling LS a wikipedian is rather disingenuous given his duration and level of participation here. Even so, you of course ignore the fact that the only reason he IS an EX-wikipedian is precisely the contentious environment he describes in his article. The histories of the pages speak for themselves on this point. I can certainly understand why you might want to misrepresent the reality contained within those histories, again given your personal POV. There's that trend again. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: I went back and reviewed the discussion on the talk page of Global Warming regarding the Earthquake theory discussion. Here is what I found:

00:17, 21 June 2008 I agree to drop the whole thing.
23:19, 22 June 2008 You make a comment which does not contain any visible reference to the ArbCom, so no I didn't follow your link because it never caught my attention. This is what, almost two days after I had already dropped it?
23:45, 22 June 2008 You start talking about the ArbCom but since I had not followed your previous link (because it appeared wholly unremarkable) this discussion appears to be meaningless blather.
00:25, 23 June 2008 Never the less, I reply to your ArbCom comment by pointing out that the ArbCom ruling, assuming you had correctly represented it, had not made it's way into the WP:RS and WP:V, which is still true. Strictly speaking, something isn't "policy", well, until it is documented in the "policy" pages.

As for edit warring, I am not edit warring as you claim. - Funny you should mention this. I just went and counted - you've made 19 article space edits since you came back, and 18 of them were immediately reverted because they were crackpottery/pseudoscience published in fringe or other unreliable sources. It seems to me that you have done almost nothing *but* edit warring since you came back.

You're not helping your case here, actually. The fact that properly sourced additions which run counter to your personal POV (and that of other "regulars" on these pages), only serves to confirm the validity of the LS article. The only questionable reference I have used was the one on the Earthquake reference and I quickly agreed to drop any attempts at re-adding it, see , precisely so the article would NOT be disrupted needlessly. Is that not the appropriate course of action under the circumstances?

Today's contribution was substantively different from my previous version as you are well aware, and it was specifically designed to address the concerns regarding attacks on WMC. This version contains nothing that can be considered and attack on anyone while clearly making the salient point that a WP:RS has called into question the validity of how Singer is represented in his BLP, taken as a whole. - today's contribution was you re-adding the same thing (to both Singer's and WMC's article) that you added yesterday and which was reverted.

The material being discussed on both of these pages is nothing like my original additions. I think you need to review your facts before making these grandstands. Also the text on the WMC page was the work of another editor, not me, I am merely defending it from the obvious POV pushing going on here. Since you like arbcom rulings, check out this one: Misplaced Pages:Requests_for_arbitration/Hkelkar#Removal_of_sourced_edits_made_in_a_neutral_narrative_is_disruptive. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages is not a multiplayer role playing game, and the 3 revert rule does not give you a license to edit war within limits. Raul654 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

So, stop treating it like one by following me around looking for chances to attack me, I find it disruptive and a waste of my time. --GoRight (talk) 00:48, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

UPDATE: Here is another ArbCom ruling for you you to consider: . Actively lobbying for things like should certainly qualify as being such. --GoRight (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

It's good to know that, by your own admission, when people point you to arbitration cases you are violating, you don't bother to read the links. It helps explain a lot about your misbehavior. And given your persistent harassment of WMC, and the fact that you were blocked for it just hours ago, you are the *last* person on Misplaced Pages who should be lecturing anyone about harassment. (Pot, meet kettle. Black)

But you're probably right that my suggestion of a GW topic ban was not a good idea. On further consideration, topic bans are for people who generally edit well except in one particular area. You are a single purpose account who does not edit at all outside of GW-related articles. So an indefinite block definitely is more appropriate - something I'll have to bear in mind in the future. Raul654 (talk) 06:04, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

A few points to consider:

Actually, what I admit to is not even noticing the ArbCom link you provided since it never even visibly mentioned the ArbCom and was placed such that it completely blended in with your user name. Here is a suggestion, if you want people to take your links seriously you might try making them recognizable as being significant in some way. "Reality disagrees" sounds like a joke or a taunt and certainly NOT something worth pursuing. Even so, my point is still valid whether or not I read your link. Official Misplaced Pages policies are articulated in, well, the official policy pages, not on obscure ArbCom links.
"(Pot, meet kettle. Black)" Yes, this is my point exactly, Mr. Black.
You mention that many of my edits have been reverted. No surprise there, actually, given the ideological leanings of the people starting the edit warring, such as yourself. Most of my edits have enjoyed support from other users so the fact that you wonder about with a chip on your shoulder reverting things isn't all that significant. In many cases the reverts of which you speak were made by you, thus making you an involved party. Yet you issue threats of blocking me inspite of the fact that it is apparently considered bad form () for an involved admin such as yourself, as well as being a persistent problem in your case .

You seem to be on some personal crusade against me. Is this not true? If true, is this appropriate behavior on your part? --GoRight (talk) 13:55, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification on preferred Gray version

GoRight, you reverted CHL with an edit comment that said I supported that other version, but you misunderstood me - I preferred this, which is what you reverted away from. Kim has restored the CHL version which I endorsed. Just wanted to clarify so there's no mixup. :-) ATren (talk) 12:00, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, I stand corrected. --GoRight (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents

In case you've not been notified already, please see:

Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by GoRight (permanent link)

--A. B. 01:53, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. --GoRight (talk) 13:26, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

At this point, you should not add the objected-to material any more. You may, if you wish, use the Requests for Comment process if you feel super strongly.

I will note, however, that this is a collaborative project and the material you are debating at Talk:William Connolley falls into a gray area. A reasonable case can be made both pro and con for its addition. This one is not worth throwing yourself on your sword particularly given the ferocious opposition of several editors; we can really use your editorial skills elsewhere. You may find it useful to just move on to one of our other 2 million + articles, some of which are wretched. We could especially use help with our biographies of living people -- see that noticeboard for ideas (or just hit the random article link in the navigation section of the far left column a few times.) --A. B. 14:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I added some additional comments at Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Disruption by GoRight --A. B. 14:37, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

*sigh* I recognize good advice when I see it. I agree that further direct addition of the material without outside support through something like an RFC would not only be futile but likely to just create problems for myself moving forward. I appreciate your support. --GoRight (talk) 14:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with A.B., there's no point in fighting that war. Clearly there's a double standard around here when it comes to certain ideological debates: BLPs on one side of the debate are filled with claims sourced to blogs and opinion pieces, while BLPs on the other side are vigourously protected from such content. But really, the encyclopedic solution is to not include such material (per BLP), so I suggest you focus on removing such material from bios on "your" side rather than attempting to add it to those on the "other" side. ATren (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I undestand the spirit of what you are saying but I believe that I have more than adequately supported the case that the National Post Op/Ed is a legitimate source, and hence meets Misplaced Pages guidelines, and so blocking it just because you don't like it is objectionable to me. Even so, I have already accepted the version on WMCs page as fine and it was provided by someone other than myself. Hopefully it will survive but I can bet that within a week it will have been removed.

In the case of the Singer article the latest version I posted should be completely non-controversial as it is supportive of the subject and the reference provided meets the general WP:RS criteria for newspapers as well as the more specific WP:BLP criteria. Am I wrong here? They just don't want the reference because it might lead people to the Op/Ed. --GoRight (talk) 16:29, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Blocked for Harassment

You have been blocked for a period of 24 hours from editing in accordance with Misplaced Pages's blocking policy for attempting to harass other users. Once the block has expired, you are welcome to make constructive contributions. If you believe this block is unjustified, you may contest the block by adding the text {{unblock|your reason here}} below. R. Baley (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Rationale: Continuing campaign to harass William M. Connolley across multiple pages despite multiple warnings to cease (some examples: diff1 diff2 from Raul654 last warning). The line has been skirted since June 22, but this edit clearly crossed it . Archived threads at ANI and AN are linked: ANI thread here and AN thread here. Please rethink your campaign here. R. Baley (talk) 17:11, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

R. Baley, after reviewing the second piece of my edit at I admit I was out of line. If you would be so kind as to unblock me, I will issue an apology on WMC's talk page and agree to be more diplomatic in the future. OK? The block will remain on my record so the primary value in it from your perspective has been achieved already ... in addition to getting me to agree to be more diplomatic, of course. --GoRight (talk) 21:00, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Hi GR, done. Though from my standpoint, I never require an apology (in general, however, I have noticed that things work better here when they're freely given --moreso than when not done). Also, the primary objective I have is that there not be any personal attacks on WMC. Should that stop (and for now I will trust your assurance that it will) I doubt you'll be hearing from me. Drop a line on your talk page if there are any problems with the autoblock or anything. Thanks, R. Baley (talk) 21:22, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your trust in this matter. The system is still blocking me from editing, however, I don't know the specifics but the message does talk about an autoblock. Your assistance will continue to be appreciated.

I would appreciate one point of clarification to avoid problems moving forward. Will you consider continued attempts on my part to lobby for material such as that found here as a violation of this trust? Including some appropriate mention of the Solomon article is not without some level of support . --GoRight (talk) 22:03, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

checking into it. . .R. Baley (talk) 22:26, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Think I found it, let me know. R. Baley (talk) 22:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK it is allowing me to edit now. Thanks for checking into it. I sincerely intend to do my best to act in a more diplomatic manner with respect to WMC moving forward. Regarding my question above would you consider those activities to be undiplomatic by their very nature? I only ask so that I can give the line you wish to draw sufficiently wide berth per our understanding here. --GoRight (talk) 22:51, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

I've been trying to craft an answer, so here goes. . .As to your other question, I don't personally agree with including it. I also don't think it serves you well to be seen as pursuing it with such persistence. But as before (this last week I mean), I won't block for advocating. But you do need to realize that at some point (and I don't know when that point is) advocacy can become tendentious. Everybody here volunteers, and no one (as far as I know) wants to spend all of their time arguing over a single source, or a single word, in what can (at the time) seem like virtual perpetuity. There are lots of editors here who advocate for different things (and generally do better when their advocacy is seen as subordinate to building an encyclopedia).

I guess that's getting off topic, basically, you want to be perceived as an editor with a POV (which after all can't be helped) and not as a POV warrior who edits (not saying that you are one). So, I probably won't like it, but advocating with respect (no matter what the subject) goes a long way with me personally. R. Baley (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

OK, this is what I had assumed based on your not questioning my activities along those lines, specifically, but seemed more directly concerned with obvious WP:NPA specific concerns. But I have learned not to assume things, hence my question. I realize that my views may run counter to that of the regular editors here, which will cause them to see my edits as violating WP:NPOV, but my primary purpose in being here is to introduce some level of fairness to the pages that I edit in terms of what I perceive as being WP:NPOV violations, as well as the double standards which are being systematically applied. I think that may edits on the Fred Singer and William M. Connolley pages since I have returned are consistent with this statement. They are clearly using their numbers to prevent minority views from being inserted, even when they are merely clarifying additions to provide proper context for the points they have inserted. The treatment of skeptics such as Fred Singer and William M. Gray are particularly biased and aggressively reverted when corrections are attempted. Take for instance, things like this: . How can this be justified as anything other than trying to mislead the reader? Singer accepted ... received unsolicited actually ... $10,000 in 1998 and 2000 if we are to believe . This has to be a miniscule percentage of Singer's budget since 1998, yet this text seeks to leave the clear impression that the energy industry is a major source of his funding. How is the possibly NPOV? Do you think that this is NPOV? Read the quote in/from the article. (Not that the current revert was by one of the regulars.) --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

William M. Gray

Since you specifically know that this was a wrong edit - i consider it a lame attempt at WP:POINT and a tendentious edit. And reverted as vandalism. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:36, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

And what was wrong with the edit? Just for future reference.

BTW, calling me tendentious is hardly being WP:CIV. You should WP:AGF as well. We have here a case of two editors objecting to the WP:POINT use of the word "controversial" to describe William Gray to your one who seeks to include it. You should attempt to reach consensus on the talk page in this case as you well know, so your reversion is equally tendentious ... as is your following me around to revert anything I edit.

Would you object if I attempted to go to the Michael Mann (scientist) page and labeled him as controversial? --GoRight (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

If you do not know the difference between theory and hypothesis - then i can understand your confusion. And i'm truly sorry to have called it vandalism, if this is the case. But frankly i think that you do know the difference, and since you've also said that you know that objections to that theory is a minority position. Then i'm forced to assume that you were baiting. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:10, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The other user's edit used theory in an appropriate manner, yet you objected based on WP:WTA which would be fine, EXCEPT that when one reads Misplaced Pages:Words_to_avoid#Theory it becomes quite obvious that the use of the word "theories" was used in a completely appropriate manner. I can only assume that you are aware that it was and so you were attempting to use WP:WTA as an excuse to advance some other agenda which would make the edit a WP:POV violation. Just because WP:WTA lists the word theory does not mean that we cannot use it properly in contexts such as this, so long as it is used appropriately as it was in this case. A complete ban on the use of the word theory under WP:WTA would be ridiculous as I assume you would agree.

I had first considered simply removing the reference to theories in the other users edit which would have produced "he does not subscribe to anthropogenic causes for global warming" which doesn't sound grammatically correct to me, although perhaps it would be acceptable. Confronted with this "hypothesized" actually did seem a reasonable compromise since the anthropogenic causes for global warming are legitimately hypotheses (which underly the theories but you wanted to avoid the word theories). I certainly wasn't going to go in the other direction and refer to these theories as laws, after all. :)

I don't intend to revert again but I would ask you to honestly consider the use of the characterization of the MAN, William Gray, as being controversial. His positions might be controversial, but the man certainly isn't. The situation is no different than calling the Hockey Stick graph controversial as opposed to the man, Michael Mann. If you find any merit in this argument I would request that you find a suitable means of simply removing the controversial characterization which is my only objection here. --GoRight (talk) 01:43, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Please show some restraint. Your edits are now being reverted as "vandalism" . This isn't good, even if you perhaps disagree. Wiki isn't here for playing games and tweaking people - that will get you blocked William M. Connolley (talk) 06:39, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

The fact that editors who disagree with me revert my material and call it vandalism should be considered unremarkable. The question is will neutral parties see it as such? Given KDP's easily established history of edit warring my modifications, no matter how trivial, would not go unnoticed if the need should arise. Nor is that particular edit anything resembling vandalism so I can only assume that those editors who don't agree with me are now engaging in a smear campaign which presumably began here and the start of which has been duly noted. I appreciate your concern though. Thanks.

Please note my commentary at , and feel free to weigh in. --GoRight (talk) 07:08, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for Comments

I have opened a request for comments on your persistent disruptive behavior and harassment of other editors. Raul654 (talk) 20:35, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Heh. Nice WP:FORUMSHOP. --GoRight (talk) 20:47, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

Hello. I suggest you stay away from William Connolley. BLP is perhaps our most important policy, and you should error on the side of doing no harm. Moreover, avoiding this article should help diffuse claims that you're harassing WMC. Don't engage in anything that can be construed as harassment.

Instead continue to work on the articles where BLP is bent or broken to include unflattering coverage—articles like Singer and Gray. Make sure all of your edits are within the four corners of our policies, and don't edit war. If no one agrees with you after a couple of reverts (at most), then consensus is apparently against you, and you should move on. You've made some good edits in this area, just stay away from anything that can be sanely called "disruption."

Consider this a warning, but it's a constructive one. Cool Hand Luke 04:47, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate the advice and will take it to heart. --GoRight (talk) 05:02, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I second everything CHL said. I would also advise that you avoid the Solomon op-ed entirely, even though I understand your rationale in including that piece as a source on the Singer article for the Martian claim. The more you try to push that piece as a source, the more people will accuse you of continuing in your pursuit of WMC. Best to avoid it entirely and focus on other BLP issues - look around a bit and I'm sure you'll find plenty to work on that doesn't directly involve WMC.

As for the Martian claim, what would you like to see there? In theory, I do understand your concerns about ideological opponents who might like to say "Singer believes in Martians!" to discredit him, but the current wording does not give me that impression - it seems pretty fair. Is it the recent denial from Singer that you wish to include? ATren (talk) 06:35, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

I appreciate your taking the time to weigh in on various topics. As per the talk page and the update to the WP:BLPN page for this issue I have moved on. I find the current wording minimally acceptable in the body of the article. I still object to the gratuitous further reading reference which I thing is worded to leave the impression he believes in Martians, but from a purely technical POV it doesn't literally say that, so I'll just drop it. --GoRight (talk) 06:57, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

After re-reading your concerns on the talk page, I do agree that the further reading reference was unnecessary, and I have removed it. I'm on the fence about Singer's denial of Martians to Solomon, and I've solicited further debate on that point on the talk page. ATren (talk) 17:06, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I have similarly become "on the fence" on the need for including Singer's explicit denial given recent my changes regarding the original of the idea that the moon was artificial for context. I appreciate your efforts here and will accept whatever outcome you feel is fair and are able to negotiate. --GoRight (talk) 17:45, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Reply to your comment

I responded to your comment on my talk page. I suggest you take my advice to heart - you will find yourself banned if you fight back too hard (not a threat, just reality). ATren (talk) 23:58, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I understand the politics here and the reality. I have been keeping my head low but process infractions are process infractions. I do appreciate your support, especially in light of my current radioactive status. --GoRight (talk) 00:01, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

No, documenting process infractions will get you labelled "tendentious process wonk". :-) Trust me on this, going to AN/I with a process complaint against Raul is akin to walking into your local police precinct to complain about harassment from a cop - no matter how true your allegation, they will defend their own. I stand by my advice: disengage and move on. And now that I've made my point abundantly clear, I won't pester you anymore on this point. :-) ATren (talk) 00:13, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Hey, maybe I was wrong, Sceptre tagged it for speedy deletion. But anyway, I still recommend you disengage from Raul and WMC. ATren (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Quickly removed ... with no update to the WP:ANI page, I might add, thus leaving it tagged as "resolved". Heh. These people are so transparent. I'm toast already, it seems, which is fine I suppose. Who wants to stay here when others can underdo anything they want with impunity? --GoRight (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Bad attitude, eh? Look, I can understand it, but it will make things very hard for you. "When others can anything with impunity?" That's the basis of how Misplaced Pages works, except that "impunity" isn't true. Anyone could have undone my removal of that speedy tag, and if it had been seriously wrong, that would have happened in a flash, or if not, in a little while. I never touched an RfC before, beyond one or two comments. You can see me working it out on the Talk page. And I gave you good advice there, but you didn't take it quickly enough. Assume bad faith less, assume good faith more. Even from people who are out to ban you, most of them think it would be best. Further, as to "impunity," you have found out that this isn't true. You were bold and undid lots of work or others. Would you say "impunity."? No. It's risky. But if it is necessary, and seems to be reasonably done in good faith, if you discuss (and not just in edit summaries fired back and forth while reverting), you can avoid most negative consequences. I've pushed the 3RR limit on occasion, but I'd better have a very good, very clear reason (and if I cross it, I'd be blocked, quite surely I'd say, within a short time. For 3RR, shoot first and ask questions later. You didn't approach that, but you did edit war. On the other hand, so did three other users, one more on your "side" and two on the other, with the article I looked at. None of that edit warring was good, in fact, there should have been much more discussion, and, more importantly, RfC. Not on the user behavior, but on the topic, i.e., does this belong in the article. Edit warring is not legitimate. But one revert is generally legitimate unless the context makes it very clear that it's really a continuation of a prior dispute, two reverts gets iffy, three more so, and four in a day has crossed the bright line. (Edit warring isn't 3RR, it happens short of that).Tag team reverting can result in all editors being considered to be one user for blocking purposes. How many of "them" there are really doesn't, in the long term, matter, until "them" really means a wide community.--Abd (talk) 21:02, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for wrongly assuming you were merely one of Raul's friends when you reversed the call for a delete. Your comments clearly indicate that you are here to bring an even handed and independent perspective. For that I thank you and this is all I ever asked for. You lectured me about trying to "wikilawyer" my way out of the RFC. I object to that characterization, however. If you review my posting on WP:ANI I think it should be clear that I merely asked for independent and objective oversight on the process that was being implemented. I don't consider that trying to wikilaywer out of anything, I was merely asking for an uninvolved opinion on what was happening so that the RFC could be taken out of the limbo that it was in, either way. Given the way the decisions went I then asked that we simply move this along.

My "impunity" comment was not directed at you, per se, but rather at other regulars on the GW pages who shall now remain nameless. This is my opinion and not a PA. If you review the GW talk pages (not that I am suggesting you really should here, but feel free) you will understand my comment. What these regulars on the GW pages really want ... they generally get ... and without consequences for any tactics they might use to get it, ergo my impunity charge. Perhaps that is right, perhaps it is wrong, but it definitely is.

FWIW, I now accept that you are here in good faith as Atren indicated below which is all I ever wanted. --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I've seen this same pattern play out literally dozens of times. Welcome to Misplaced Pages. :-/ ATren (talk) 01:03, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

BTW, I don't believe Abd was acting in bad faith here, he just did what he thought was right... though the end result will likely result in you being topic banned. Again, welcome to Misplaced Pages... ATren (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

One more comment here. The speedy close was improper because the RfC had only been listed a short time before. The two days begins when it has been listed, not when the page is created. It was all confused because the other user signed it, but, until it was listed, it was not even "one certifier in search of a second." It becomes that when listed. So the "resolution" on AN/I was simply a poor interpretation of the guideline. I did go to AN/I as soon as I could after reverting and explaining the revert in Talk. It takes a little time for things to be done! And, today, I moved it to Approved. That wasn't actually urgent at all; my opinion, though, is that the month begins when it is Approved, because before then, many people will not comment. I don't know much about RfC, though, so what I say is just my impression. Often right, but not always. Final comment: you will find, as your experience of the community widens, that there are many people who care much more for NPOV than they do for any POV, people who believe that "truth will out," who understand that mutual respect is essential for the community to serve its purpose, and all that. Around what might be called the "active core," there is a fairly high concentration of uncivil users, but, still, even there, there are plenty of very good editors. It takes a lot to get their attention, though. So ... patience. --Abd (talk) 21:12, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I was unfamiliar with the RFC process ... still am ... which is why I asked for an independent opinion on WP:ANI. I accept your interpretation as being made in good faith and your account of the timing required. Thank you for taking the time to be involved. --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Whatever happens, happens. I have said my piece. --GoRight (talk) 01:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure about the end result. I've now looked at some of the evidence -- which was not relevant to the original cause for my intervention, the speedy deletion, which was, quite simply, dead wrong -- and GoRight looks much better than before. The charges were clumsily laid, which complicates it, and the defense was likewise clumsy, impolitic. All of which is largely irrelevant to the actual substance of the situation. It explains, though, the early !votes. People !vote without investigating, or already have their minds made up from involvement. I've just examined, in detail, the first article that it was claimed he edit warred in. That doesn't look good for the "prosecution." GoRight, I strongly suggest, if you are tempted, to avoid any kind of serious "defense." Let the community sort it out, briefly respond to what is clearly incorrect, if nobody else catches it, and use diffs to substantiate any point you make. They did not, their "case" is rather pitiful without them. A list of articles forces readers to do a lot of work to figure out what was going on. Doing that for one article took me, I'm not sure, two hours? RfCs are not binding, but they prepare for ArbComm. This RfC is pretty badly contaminated, I'd say, and ArbComm, looking at it, would toss it in a New York minute. But that doesn't mean that the other side from you does not have a case, they may simply have been incompetent at presenting it. They may have, for example, listed the least clear example first. Terrible idea, eh? But if all you are doing is trying to compile a laundry list of complaints, that's an error easy to make. And that's what the charges are, a laundry list, with lots of redundancy. None of which bears on your behavior, that's about them. So I'm trying to move beyond that, and will ultimately comment on your behavior, but I need to dispose, first, of the smoke and mirrors to see what is really going on. I don't agree, yet, that the likely result is a topic ban. But maybe there's a lot I haven't seen. Just to point out: if all the other articles, let me speculate, are like the first, a likely result is that the other editors will be topic banned. Maybe you, also, maybe not. But if they (the article histories) show more serious behavior, that could shift. I just noticed your comment above. Definitely there has been some "attitude" that needs adjusting, and, in fact, you will be much better off if you can manage it. It isn't necessarily easy.--Abd (talk) 20:08, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Like I said, I now trust that you are here to be fair. That is all I ask. Let my actions and edits as documented in my response speak for themselves. If an even handed individual (but hopefully individuals) such as yourself agrees with they side of the dispute then so be it. I shal stand corrected and accept that my perspective was skewed. I don't believe an fair review of the material will reveal anything other than political posturing on their part in an attempt to railroad me off their turf ... as they seem to see it. --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

If everyone was as thorough as Abd, perhaps people would get a fair shake. But you have respected admins making false, trumped up claims; and then you have a dozen of his friends show up to blindly endorse those claims without looking at a single diff. Problem solved, POV preserved. Welcome to Conservapedia West. This is why I generally refuse to get involved in any articles that the GW editors own, even if they're outright BLP vios. It's not worth the hassle. GR, you would be wise to back off from GW articles in the future, even if you don't get a topic ban. ATren (talk) 00:29, 5 July 2008 (UTC)

I hope you read Abd's words and take them to heart...

It looks like Abd's extensive, dispassionate analysis may give you a reprieve from an open-and-shut "civil POV pusher" judgement. You are very lucky to have stumbled upon someone like him who not only sees things with a dispassionate eye but is also willing to invest all the hours required to pour through the evidence and properly document it.

Having said that, if you do get through this RFC unscathed, I hope you read everything Abd wrote and take it to heart. Your edits are not abusive per se (especially given the toxic environment on the GW pages) but you were somewhat pointy and aggressive at times, and you seemed to come into these articles with an assumption of bad faith on the part of certain editors on the other side. You should work to change that.

Abd's advice is mainly directed at the other "side", but you can learn from his advice too. Take WMC, for example: you seem to have come to Misplaced Pages with a very definite preconception about him, and to some extent that preconception is earned - he's regularly abrasive and uncivil towards editors who oppose his POV. But remember, he's been doing that for years with the support and endorsement of a community that tends to run off all opposition. Why should he change under those conditions? If you regularly acted uncivil and were subsequently hailed as a "defender of the Wiki" for your efforts, would you feel the need to improve your behavior? No.

Yes, WMC has a POV, but he also has a lot of knowledge, and if there were WMC's on all sides of the debate here, engaging in real intellectual debate instead of mudslinging, we might see real improvement on the articles. But it starts with mutual (if grudging) respect for the other side. If people listen to people like Abd, perhaps we can get to that point.

So if you continue here, I hope you take great pains to WP:AGF even with the most abrasive of editors. If they are uncivil, ignore it and stick to your points; don't edit war; avoid sarcasm or pointy discourse; accept consensus even when it goes counter to your POV; and be above all, be patient. Learn from Abd. ATren (talk) 15:56, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Never fear, I think that Abd would finally end Diogenes famous quest to find an honest man. Criticism from an honest man I can take to heart as constructive criticism and intend to do so. His even handed treatment does give me food for reflective thought. Note that I have already take some of his advice to heart by removing my knee jerk reaction concerning Raul's own behavior from my reply. It was a distraction from the topic of the article, so I removed it. I appreciate both Abd's and your own support throughout this no matter what happens. --GoRight (talk) 23:53, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatism

GoRight: the basic crux of it is this: you are opposing the prevailing POV of many powerful editors, therefore you must behave better than them. This is neither fair nor NPOV, but that's the way it is. In real life, if a police officer gets rough with you and you respond in kind, you will not get a fair shake even if you did nothing more than he did. This is especially true if you are a minority. That's life.

You know the old saying "you can't fight city hall"? That applies here. You will not change that by making accusations against the powers - you will simply be blocked for being tendentious (the Wiki equivalent of a trumped up "resisting arrest" charge in real life). Now, you are uniquely lucky here because you have a very fair and civil "defense lawyer" who is pouring through the evidence and making your case. His efforts will probably go nowhere, because most people will just go along with the powers whom they agree with, but at least he's making your case. Leave it to him - if he can't sway opinion then you certainly can't. Again, returning to the real life analogy - would you walk into a police station to report police brutality against one of the officers there and expect to get sympathy from them? Of course not. So why would you expect to get a fair shake from a community which has supported these editors for years?

Let it go. Move on to other issues, always behave better than them, and use dispute resolution (and accept that you will most often lose to the prevailing POV). Be pragmatic. ATren (talk) 18:07, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

If my only goal here was to be able to continue to edit GW pages your point would be appropriate. We both know that despite Abd's best efforts the core individuals are simply going to stonewall any efforts at consensus building with respect to my RFC. So that leaves open the question of where this thing will end up. If they already have sufficient strength to institute a topic ban then the writing is already on the wall. So my only option will be to escalate and hope to get a fair hearing from the ArbCom. Even there things may be stacked against me depending on the factions involved, but I trust that group more than the current one to sit in judgment of me and the others.

But our goal should not be simply that self-serving one. To stay here and endure the injustice of false accusations and hypocrisy would hardly be worth it in it's own right. If no one ever speaks out against this type of behavior things will never change. If I agree to allow them to trod on me I have no right to complain about having been trodden upon. I say let the light of truth be shown upon this situation and allow their own actions to demonstrate who and what they are. I am not afraid of the truth.

As for letting it go, I think I have for the most part. My behavior since this began has been essentially that which they desire ... a point that escapes everyone in this ... which will not be unnoticed should the situation escalate to arbitration.

I am unclear on what the RFC is attempting to accomplish at this point, actually. Negotiate some agreement? Where is the disagreement? I am acting as they desire. Have they been unable to resolve the charges they level against me? Again, I am acting as they desire. So what is the end game here? Does this thing just sit there languishing indefinitely with no formal resolution? At what point does the decision of whether I have been topic banned get made and how? Further discussion seems pointless, although I am happy to give Abd as much time as he desires to cover whatever ground he wishes to cover. I remain unhindered as long as this thing remains open, I suppose.

So are we just going to keep visiting this for 30 days, or more? --GoRight (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

My comment there is not finished. I have a few more pages of edit history to examine, and still it would not truly be done, the Talk page histories should be examined (edit warring with no attempt to negotiate consensus in Talk is worse than the same reverts, but each time with a good-faith explanation in Talk and, then, even better, is that each new edit tries to find some common ground, some middle place where all sides can agree. If one side, in the fact of attempts like that, follows Misplaced Pages guidelines and policy rigorously and civilly, well, the other side is going to look absolutely awful when a larger spotlight shines on the mess.

If you'd like to have a better idea what is going on, read Requests for arbitration. There are good RfArs and poor ones. The poor ones are kind of like your RfC, tossed together, without solid documentation of what actually happened, put together with an axe to grind. ArbComm isn't likely to do much independent investigation (it happens rarely), rather, it depends on what the various involved parties and commentators provide. So you'll see good RfArs where somebody, and, even better, more than one person, did their homework, and then you will see some others where the whole thing was just a big mess and ArbComm more or less guessed at a response. And then there is possible political interference: see WP:Requests for arbitration/Mantanmoreland for a famous case, and look at the phenomenal amount of research that was done. The decision itself might seem a little wimpy, but the community is bigger than ArbComm. Mantanmoreland is now banned.

If you look at the Connolley RfAr currently under consideration, you'll see that a comprehensive examination of Connolley's behavior was avoided, and there has been no notice taken of the fact that he's never acknowledged that the block extension error he made was, in fact, an error. Similar refusal to recognize the problem, with other administrators, has resulted in their loss of admin rights. It's true that this was a less obvious case, complicated in many ways. But nobody, as far as I've seen, has cogently made the point that, without an acknowledgment, the behavior -- which ArbComm is emphasizing was a real problem -- is likely to repeat. I decided not to comment, because I'd rather work more as Atren describes above, I'd rather give Connolley every chance to "smell the coffee," so to speak, to realize that the future of the planet depends on our ability to find consensus, not to force the world to our own thinking, no matter how "correct" we think it is. But now, as a result of researching your RfC background, I have a better idea of what is going on, and, of course, when they "fire" at me, the flashes reveal "their" position. The same names show up in certain places, again and again. I don't know what to make of that, yet, or whether I should make anything of it at all. But I'm seeing it.

When I get the evidence file and the extended comment file and the actual RfC comment done, to some reasonable level of thoroughness, I plan to notify everyone who commented in the RfC of it, to allow them to review their comment in the light of it. One of the big problems with Misplaced Pages is that we have deliberative process, all right, but people pile in at the beginning and !vote -- before having seen more than the "prosecution's" evidence. Surely this is a strange thing. One of the reforms that I would suggest is that any RfC or similar process start with an evidence gathering period, followed by an analysis period, and *then* by !votes, i.e., overall conclusions. So everyone !voting is looking at the same evidence.... --Abd (talk) 02:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I have some sympathy for ATren's point of view. And indeed, some for GR's. As to the RFC... is it not essentially over already? RFC's are not RfAr's. They are an opportunity for the community to express its opinion, insofar as it has one, and for other editors more directly involved to take note of that. Thats happened. I can expound further if you like. In the meantime: Does this thing just sit there languishing indefinitely with no formal resolution? - RFC's (from my recollection of my own (did you find that? It was a long time ago)) tend to just peter out. You can put up a notice of intention to close, if you like William M. Connolley (talk) 07:15, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

RfC comment

I was being too cryptic. Clarified. Cool Hand Luke 23:21, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Schulte 2008

I'm moving this discussion to your talk page because 1) we're the only ones talking specifically about how to to interpret the paper and 2) I feel that I've already put my take on that page as clearly as I possible can. However, we are obviously still talking past each other, I find this kind of thing fun, and I think I might actually be able to convince you, so here, I am, on your talk page. We can move this to mine, if you'd like, but unless we come up with something significantly different from what we've both already put on the Talk:Global warming I don't want to keep filling up that page with something that is of interest to only two people.

You said:

I guess I am confused by what your real position is, then. In either my interpretation of the study results, or yours, the metric for determining the level of consensus appears to be "the percentage of published papers that either explicitly or implicitly support the consensus view". Is this not the case?.

No, it's not the case. The metric I'm using is the number of published abstracts found with an ISI search for "global climate change" that implicitly or explicitly support the consensus divided by the number of published abstracts found with an ISI search for "global climate change" that address the consensus. I am specifically rejecting as useful the percent that support the consensus divided by all of the abstracts found. I think it's interesting, but I don't think it's a useful metric.

In my interpretation of the results, this implies in a decrease of the metric from 75% to 45%, and by yours it represents a decrease from 100% to 89% (leaving the statistical significance thereof aside for the moment).

I reject the metric that decreases from 75% to 45%, and find somewhat useful the metric that decreases from 100% to 89% BUT I reject the usefulness of ANY comparison between studies because different people were assigning the abstracts to categories.

On the issue of "(Except maybe that it's not controversial enough to address)", there is, of course, another equally, if not more, reasonable interpretation of the facts. Namely, that the issue is so controversial and the science so unresolved as to not justify taking a stand either way.

Of course, that's possible, which is why I reject this as a metric. Either explanation, and probably a bunch of other ones, is possible.

I just can't imagine claiming that's fair or neutral to not make a judgment about which sources to use. We can't use all of them; there are hundreds of reliable sources on the topic! How do we choose which ones to use? Our judgment is really, really important. The policy on which sources are reliable is not enough to decide which sources to use; we collectively must make judgments. And it's really important to analyze the literature in order to make judgments about it. I've got to go now, but I'm happy to continue this conversation in the future because I really think the global warming is an excellent article because people with different perspectives had to compromise on it. - Enuja (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

We can continue here if your wish, but we have probably said most of what there is to say. We may just end up agreeing to disagree. We can go a couple of more rounds to see if things converge but I won't be able to reply to this in detail for a day or so. Check bock around then for a reply. --GoRight (talk) 20:48, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

Sorry bout that

Just reverted two of your edits in a row so I thought I'd leave a courtesy note to say nothing personal, I just disagreed with both of them. On the Real Climate one in particular I'd be happy to include criticism if we can find a reliable source for it. However I appreciate that blogs about blogs is a bit tricky so I guess criticism of it on a blog notable enough to have a WP article would do me. --BozMo talk 21:40, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

That's OK, it goes with the territory.

On the RealClimate case I would simply ask that you consider the following points and then reconsider your revert:

Using RealClimate as a source has been controversial here on Misplaced Pages since it's inception, partly because it is hosted by GW proponents and partly because WMC was (still is?) a contributor there. (I offer this merely as anecdotal evidence that such a controversy actually does exist.)
The criticism that was included there had been talked about thoroughly at the time was was already a compromise position. Both the uncertainty trap bit was downplayed as well as Steven McIntyre's quotes had been removed from the original even though they were both properly sourced.
While a no formal declaration of consensus had been reached WMC obviously decided at the time that the final version was a reasonable position as evidenced by his final edits which form the longstanding version. He was only recently stirred into action again because someone else had tried to re-introduce the uncertainty trap language more completely, thus unbalancing this delicate tightrope we are on.
As to whether the reference is noteworthy, if you review the previous talk on the subject you will note that several of the regular names that you will recognize accepted, albeit reluctantly, the Roger Pielke, Jr. was of sufficient stature as to be noteworthy based on his own publications and areas of expertise.
The blog in question is a WP:SPS of Roger Pielke, Jr. and is therefore considered a reliable source for his own comments since he has relevant publications in peer-reviewed journals and is otherwise notable (i.e. a reference to his comments on his own blog carries the same weight as a reference to say, Michael Mann, would from RealClimate). This is most likely the argument that lead the others at the time to accept the existing language.

If you can accept that some limited criticism of RealClimate is appropriate for WP:NPOV, in general, then this is likely the best that can be achieved with the available material. Please consider self-reverting so we can avoid further drama over this issue.

On the Solomon issue I would ask you to at least restore the existing consensus language so that this article and the deniers article are consistent until this gets resolved. Changing scientists to "people" is unnecessarily pointy and is a clear WP:POV push to downplay the significance of the credentials of the individuals involved by labeling them with an otherwise "common" term. The people profiled in the book are by no mean "common". I have an outstanding inquiry as to what the real issue is with the use of the term scientist so that it might be adequately addressed. --GoRight (talk) 22:49, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Of course from a personal point of view I would be happy to see criticism of RealClimate. Its notability is pretty marginal from my perspective and its way to trendy as a concept to be serious. But its hard to see how a barely notable blog's comments on a barely notable blog should get in. I would be inclined not to puff the issue up by writing more about it. I doubt many people visit that article anyway.

On Lawrence I will think about whether I can find another way of expressing it. However I am not sure about a list including many dead and retired people amounts to much. I also don't have a lot of sympathy for the way that LS seems to be conducting himself. I don't get into lots of reversions, though and won't be the next person to revert it.

Incidentally there is a long standing tradition of experts in a particular discipline overestimating its importance (and often its safety). Y2K and GM crops are good examples. Climate change may well be similar but that's OR and Misplaced Pages is about policy. It bothers me that this aspect is missing from the GM articles but I cannot see how to get it in. --BozMo talk 06:08, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"... barely notable blog's comments on a barely notable blog ..." - Well, if you consider RealClimate to likewise be a barely notable blog then fine ... but since it is in it seems acceptable, at least IMHO, to use comparably notable sources to discuss it. Leaving the RealClimate page on the site when it's notability is questionable but rejecting comparably notable criticism because it seems not notable enough just seems like a double standard of sorts. In this case I think if one stays so should the other.

"However I am not sure about a list including many dead and retired people amounts to much." - I don't think that this is a fair assessment of the actual state of things. Is the list primarily dead and/or retired people? Even so I don't agree that dead and/or retired people are automatically irrelevant. For example, is the fact that Albert Einstein is dead significant to the acceptance or validity of the Theory of General Relativity? Obviously not. (And no I am not suggesting that anyone on Solomon's list is the equivalent of Albert Einstein ... but he serves to illustrate the point.)

The weight and the importance of the people in question lives beyond their death or retirement. And in the case of retirement, here, Vincent Gray may be retired from his first career but he is still an active participant in the GW debate. --GoRight (talk) 17:27, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

I'd put most of this within the grounds of reasonable disagreement and your preparedness to discuss it all makes you an exception amongst though I have seen come and go on this topic. But I have seen too many retired good scientists go a bit nutty off topic like Eric Laithwaite to take them as seriously. FWIW I respect Monckton more. Of course he doesn't really understand the science but he tries to and tries to give critique. He gets the idea that analysis is important, he just isn't very good at it and misestimates his own competence. That seems better than trying to list "famous" people who aren't convinced of element X. If there are holes to be found they won't be found by LS I am sure. --BozMo talk 18:28, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"But I have seen too many retired good scientists go a bit nutty off topic like Eric Laithwaite to take them as seriously." - :) I am not familiar with Laithwaite. What did he do to earn this particular epithet?

"If there are holes to be found they won't be found by LS I am sure." - I wouldn't be so sure about that. LS doesn't have to find the holes himself, nor does he even try, he just has to find credible critics who, in turn, are finding the holes.

The book is actually very well written, IMHO, and his sources are quite credible. When you actually read his material, as opposed to what people like WMC have to say about it, he is spot on in the subjects he profiles. They are all legitimate criticisms of the IPCC, its policies, and its view of GW. These really aren't crackpots or fringe wackos he is quoting no matter how much the GW proponents would like that to be true. That makes for a powerful message because it highlights the tactics being used by the GW proponents. This is the rationale behind his choice of the title, The Deniers. He has turned it into a club to beat those who coined it in the first place.

The dirty little secret here is that the GW proponents are engaging in ad hominem attacks on these individuals because that is easier than trying to refute what these critics have to say ... generally because what the critics have to say is embarrassing to the GW proponents since there is so much truth in it.

Have you read the book? --GoRight (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Except that he is quoting people out of context, which doesn't really make for a good argumentation. Since LS isn't someone that gets taken seriously - i think most (like Tol, Storch, Nordhaus etc) have ignored him. See for instance Solanki's comment on the article (not the book). (i guess he wasn't "spot on" there) --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:07, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

A strawman on your part. Solanki is complaining about being labeled a denier, which he interprets as meaning that he denies GW is anthropogenic, but this is of course NOT what denier means to Solomon. A "denier" is someone whose views run counter to the doomsday scenario, not simply anthropogenicity. I see nothing there that suggests he was misquoted, only that he doesn't like the label and what he thinks it means. Solomon points out in the book that this is true of many such individuals ... as well as the reasons why ... and in the article that Solanki refers to Solomon explicitly accounts for the fact that Solanki accepts AGW caused effects:

"Not that Dr. Solanki discredits the role of man-made greenhouse gases, such as carbon dioxide. These have probably played a large role in Earth's climate, he believes, but only since 1980 or so, when the sun's almost perfect correlation with Earth temperatures ended."

So Solanki's objections seem a bit unfounded. But when the GW intelligencia threatens your livelyhood you undoubtedly don't want to take any chances.

"(i guess he wasn't "spot on" there)" - Well I guess I need to clarify. In this case "subjects" equates to "topics" not "people or individuals". As a topic, the fact that Solanki's research bolsters the view that the Sun plays a primary (and natural) role in the temperature of the Earth is quite clear, and this remains one of the most credible counter arguments to the GW hysteria. In that sense, the topic was "spot on". --GoRight (talk) 20:46, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Solanki explicitly says that he article was misleading here. And as for "when the GW intelligencia threatens your livelyhood you undoubtedly don't want to take any chances", that's the kind of inane claim that shreds every remaining bit of respect the "deniers" have left. Solanki is a tenured professor in Germany. That means he cannot be fired unless he commits an actual crime and is sentenced to more than one year in prison. His income and pension are pegged at above what most people consider "well to do". From a livelihood perspective, he can fart on anybody's opinion, global warming "intelligencia" or politician. And that's exactly why professors in most of the civilized world have good to excellent job security - to make sure that they can work and teach without undue political and economic pressure. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:20, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"Solanki explicitly says that he article was misleading here." - Yes he does. But again you try the very same strawman as KDP using the very same quote. (Did you think I didn't read the quote KDP pointed to?) He is not claiming that the article is misleading about what his science says or implies, he is complaining that the article is misleading because it labels him a denier, which he takes to imply that he doesn't believe in any AGW component to the warming. These are two very different things. And as for his actual claim that the article misleads people into thinking he denies an AGW component, I have provided a direct quote from the article that refutes this claim on his part. The sad truth is that he is simply reacting to the label and nothing more. As for being tenured, well that's nice. He won't loose his salary. But of course I suspect that he also wants to continue to receive grant money which is, of course, what is at risk if the intelligencia even think he has a skeptical view in his body. --GoRight (talk) 22:34, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Solanki does not receive any grant money, as I hope you know. His institute might, to fund his research. So in a classical case of moving the goal post, you have now come from a "threatened livelihood" to "less funding for his research". It's still wrong, of course. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:54, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

No, i would say that the sad truth is that you believe LS over the horses own mouth. Its not a strawman - its what Solanki says: "A misleading account of my views", and he is referring to "misquotes" (not just the denier part). You believe LS's statement that (paraphrasing) "he's only upset about being called a denier", thats a bit sad - but i guess convenient :). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:43, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

"In contrast to what is written there I am not a denier of global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases." - This is the operative part of his complaint where he clarifies how his true position differs from what he interprets Solomon's column to mean. What part of this is indicating any misquoting of his science? Is there any other part that I am not quoting here where he indicates that Solomon says I said X but I really said Y? No there is not, and you can manufacture such statements out of thin air. He said what he said, and it means what it means, and nothing more. Period.

You are trying to make it about misquoting the science which is a strawman because Solanki's own words only discuss the claim of his being a denier, as I have stated. He is saying that the article misquotes him because he believes it says he is specifically a denier of "global warming produced by an increase in the concentration of greenhouse gases" when he never said that. That's the misquote, obviously. --GoRight (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Neither the book nor any IPCC report nor the Al Gore film nor any popular work... I did see the Great Global Warming Scandal program though and I have read a reasonable number of the modelling papers (I used to work on complex maths simulations). I also was heavily involved in getting Shell out of the Global Climate Coalition (it cost me some 1963 port) because I read a lot of the GCC stuff when we (I was a senior manager there) were involved and it was shockingly anti-scientific. But I don't think the ad hominem attack things is particularly fair. As for Laithwaite he became convinced gyroscopes did not obey Newton's Laws and did not understand angular momentum. But he was famous for other things and got to do the RI Christmas lectures (the main UK children's science event) on his insanity. I saw those as did millions of children. --BozMo talk 20:03, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Ad hominem is an interesting concept in these sort of situations. If I may sketch a hypothetical but potentially relevant scenario:

Milip Phorris: We've got a problem. We could really use some research that says secondhand smoke is harmless, or at least muddy the waters enough to forestall regulation. You! You in the white coat! Here's a blank check, a soapbox, and a megaphone. Can you help us out?

Eminent researcher: Oooh! A blank check (climbs onto soapbox, which is actually a stack of old copies of Indoor and Built Environment, and shouts through megaphone) Hey! Secondhand smoke is harmless! The WHO, Surgeon General, EPA, and NCI are wrong! Epidemiology is junk science! I reanalyzed the data myself, and now the confidence intervals overlap 1.0!

Curious observer: Wait a second... I just saw Milip Phorris hand you a blank check, a soapbox, and a megaphone, and now you're fudging the numbers for them! I don't believe you. How come the only people who agree with you also receive blank checks from Milip Phorris, while everyone else thinks secondhand smoke is bad for you?

Eminent researcher: Aha! An ad hominem argument! Clearly my science must be correct, or you wouldn't stoop to mentioning the blank check. Besides, I only take Philip Morris' money because the Academic Mafia won't fund my research - it's too awesomely threatening to their worldview.

Does this hypothetical scenario seem familiar? :) MastCell 23:26, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Not really. If you replace "Eminent researcher" with "Retired mid-level researcher from another field", you're a lot closer, though... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 29 July 2008 (UTC)

Meh. Nice hypothetical. But what does it have to do with anything in reality? Try arguing from things found there and you might get somewhere. For example, you claim that blank checks were handed out. Do you have any sources to back that up in reality?

Besides, who are we talking about here, hypothetically? --GoRight (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Well, technically, the Curious Observer's argument is still fallacious, whether he/she is correct or not. The observer might certainly be correct to not trust the researcher, if they do indeed know that the researcher is paid by the tobacco company. However, it is still flawed reasoning to simply claim that the numbers must be "fudged" based solely on the fact that the person is paid by said company.

But if the observer can provide evidence that the analysis is wrong, reasoning fails to be flawed. However, regardless of all prior events, it is unreasonable to claim that the researcher must be wrong due to those prior events. Bakaprod (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

You're illustrating the genius of this strategy. Modern research methodology is complex enough that it requires a detailed and intricate deconstruction to debunk a sophisticated manipulation of data. Even when such debunking is done, the average (non-specialized) observer is left with an impression of subjectivity and uncertainty because of the sheer complexity of the arguments involved on both sides. Creating and nurturing this exaggerated uncertainty is the tactic of choice.

The tobacco industry's internal research showed early on that secondhand smoke was almost certainly harmful; therefore, they chose a strategy predicated on muddying the waters. Yes, each industry researcher's conclusions could be shown to be manipulative or flawed with enough effort. But the goal was not to convince anyone per se, but simply to generate doubt - or, as the famous internal memo put it, "Doubt is our product."

In any case, it would require quite extraordinary naievete, in this day and age, to argue that a researcher's conflicts of interest should be disregarded and their work analyzed in a vacuum. The editors of every major medical (and, I would assume, scientific) journal realize this. Hence the lengthy disclosures of funding sources and conflicts of interest which are required before a reputable journal will even consider publishing a research paper, and which accompany every article in such journals. What if I told you that tobacco-industry-funded research was 88 times more likely than independent research to conclude that secondhand smoke was harmless? Sure, that doesn't mean that any one specific tobacco-funded article is guaranteed to be biased - but by the same token, it'd be silly to approach them with the same assumptions you would an independently funded paper. That's not an ad hominem argument, and it's not fallacious. MastCell 17:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

(unindent)Naievete aside, nothing changes the fact that it is still an error in reasoning to say, based on the facts mentioned above, that the researcher must be wrong because they are funded by a tobacco company. I know what strategy to which you are referring. It is also a logical fallacy, referred to as Proof by Verbosity. You can find a good example of it here. But, Two Wrongs Don’t Make a Right. It is this belief that we should apply the same poor reasoning principles used in the political arena to science which has led to the perversion and bastardization of research that we see running rampant today. Science does not work by criticizing the sources of findings, only the findings themselves. True science flies in the face of popular culture or of the political atmosphere, and stands on its own. In your example, I can easily replace “Tobacco Company”, “Secondhand smoke” and “Cancer” with “Vaccine Manufacturer”, “Thimerosal” and “Autism”, respectively, and make the exact same argument. By your logic, I would have to conclude that there is a high likelihood that Thimerosal does cause autism, because a study by a vaccine company declares the opposite.

'Sure, that doesn't mean that any one specific tobacco-funded article... not an ad hominem argument, and it's not fallacious.' I certainly agree that one should listen with trepidation when it comes to research, especially of highly politicized topics, but we must do so when looking from all sides, even from the research of proponents of Global Warming, because independent funding on anything is never quite as independent as you make it out to be. The purse strings are always ready to close if sexy new findings aren’t a result, even of “independent funding.” However there is a difference between saying that you look upon a researcher’s results with skepticism because of their funding, and saying they must be wrong or “fudging the numbers” because of it. The former is a reasoned response, the latter is a logical fallacy.Bakaprod (talk) 13:18, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

No, vaccines and autism are hardly comparable - or if they are, it's in the inverse direction to that which you suggest. The Institute of Medicine, the CDC, and so forth are not funded by vaccine manufacturers. There is little besides conspiracist speculation to suggest that their conclusions about vaccines and autism (and those of similar bodies outside the US) are biased or unduly influenced. On the other hand, a number of individual researchers claiming to link vaccines to autism (most prominently Andrew Wakefield) have come under fire for apparent conflicts of interest and alleged issues with research ethics and integrity.

In any case, the tobacco industry and, to a lesser extent, the energy industry, have a well-documented paper trail describing their strategy of influencing research to generate FUD. We're not talking about conspiracy theories or cui bono speculation here - we're talking about documented actions and facts.

I'm not suggesting that one can abandon skepticism when dealing with government-funded research, but the ideas put forward about researchers' financial interest in hyping global warming are, frankly, ludicrously far-fetched. This is in contrast to an obvious, direct, and partially documented link between the energy industry, the "denial machine", and the short-term profits to be made by forestalling regulation.

I suspect you may not have any experience in actually applying for research funding, and have accepted the conventional wisdom about it. In fact, any researcher with compelling evidence that would falsify or substantially revise our current understanding of climate change would be readily fundable - it's actually much easier to get funding for, and to publish, research which challenges or revises the status quo than to publish yet another paper confirming that yes, it's getting warmer. Sure, the "skeptics" who don't get funded blame political bias rather than a lack of convincing arguments and data. Blaming failures on external mechanisms rather than personal shortcomings is a universal human defense mechanism, but I don't see the objective evidence to support it here. MastCell 17:30, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Discussion with User:Enuja

I hope I'll be forgiven for this tangent on your talk page, GoRight (which I still have watched). All of this brings up a very important point: what is a "denier" and what is the "consensus"? Global warming does not claim that the consensus is that future warming will be catastrophic, or that all of the science is "finished" on the subject. Exploring differences in models and evidence that 1) suggest small or large changes in temperature, extreme weather events, human infrastructure, or species distribution is different from 2) arguing about whether or not the greenhouse effect exists, carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas, the burning of fossil fuels has increased and is further increasing the concentration of carbon dioxide in the air, and that this increase in carbon dioxide (and other anthropogenic greenhouse gases) is and will continue to result in increased global temperatures.

I don't think the rampant claims of vandalism and the regular undoing on the article pages would come from the a dispute about my first list of possible disagreements. The reason the editing environment is so poisonous is that editors contest my second list on a regular basis. Crafting language that correctly communicates the currently knowledge and uncertainty about the first list is an important and difficult job, but it's completely unrelated to global warming skepticism or denial. Calling people who discuss and disagree about the first list skeptics or deniers is another thing that gets my panties in a bunch. - Enuja (talk) 01:33, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't mind the discussion here. I am afraid that I'm not completely clear on what you are saying above. I would like to better understand the scope of this statement: "Calling people who discuss and disagree about the first list skeptics or deniers is another thing that gets my panties in a bunch."

How would you characterize, for example, the following cases:

Someone who doesn't dispute the CO2 is a Greenhouse Gas, who doesn't dispute that anthropogenic sources of CO2 are increasing the atmospheric concentration, and accepts therefore that there is an AGW component to the current warming but they disagree that the AGW component is the primary driver or that it plays only a minor role?
Someone who argues that the current claim of unprecedented warming is not truly supported by the available science because of the uncertainties present in the calculations performed?
Someone who completely accepts that CO2 is a primary driver of the current warming but argues that the effects of the warming will not be catastrophic or, in some cases, may actually be beneficial?

Are any of these cases legitimately labeled (pejoratively) as "deniers" by their opponents in the debate and/or dismissed as being WP:FRINGE or unscientific? --GoRight (talk) 18:48, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

The positions are not really precise enough for a clear demarcation. What is "minor"? What is "catastrophic"? Does "unprecedented" mean "has never happened" in the last 4.5 billion years or "has not happened during the current climatic phase (i.e. in the last 10000 years)? With that caveats, I'd presume the first to be a sceptic, the second to be a denier, and the third may even be fairly mainstream. The IPCC recognizes potential for some beneficial effects, and "catastrophic" may well be restricted mostly to poorer countries, so from a rich Westerner perspective, not much will change. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

And now what is your assessment of how Al Gore and most of the mainstream media would respond? --GoRight (talk) 20:41, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict; written as reply to GoRight's original reply) What I was complaining about with that sentence was argument tactics where people take disagreements within the uncertainly described by the IPCC 4th assessment report, and try to label people with those opinions as global warming deniers or skeptics. Manufacturing uncertainly annoys me.

From the options above, I'd only think of someone as a denier if they claimed that predictions or modeling were never useful and therefore there are no scientific clues about future climate possibilities, that the evidence doesn't strongly indicate some future warming, or that extremely low lying countries (see: Maldives#Geography) and villages on permafrost are in no future danger because of anthropogenic global warming.

On the other hand, the first two opinions disagree with the IPCC 4th assessment, which is the best review of the state of the entire field that exists. So those opinions shouldn't get equal coverage with the consensus on Global warming. Just because something isn't out-right denial doesn't mean that it should get equal coverage with more mainstream views.

The third opinion, however, can actually be construed as agreeing the IPCC 4th assessment. The summary says that "Impacts of climate change are very likely to impose net annual costs, which will increase over time as global temperatures increase." Net annual costs doesn't mean necessarily catastrophic costs, and net annual costs obviously includes some benefits for some people. (Parts of the second opinion agree with the consensus, too; no-one credible is claiming the temperature of the earth is going to reach historically unprecedented levels. The problems are that this change is quick, and that we're living through it, so it might bother us instead of just leaving an interesting extinction event for paleontologists of the future to study. I mean, come on, living things turned the entire atmosphere to poison by releasing oxygen, and killed most of themselves off. This isn't going to be nearly as bad as that.)

(written after reading replies by Steven Schultz & GoRight) Ahh, now I see where you are going. Yes, some news media (and, for example, the implication in Inconvenient truth and its posters that catastrophic hurricanes are a direct and predictable result of global warming) could use some global warming fact checking. That doesn't influence general global warming articles, though; they should stick to verifiable facts and only venture into fact-checking when clearly wrong things are widely believed (and this wrong belief is fact-checked by reliable sources). - Enuja (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I only raise the question about Al Gore and most of the mainstream media because they are both explicitly included in Solomon's definition of "denier". I agree that with a narrowly contrived definition of "denier" which only include things that directly contradict the IPCC view that both Stephan's and your assessments are essentially accurate. That narrowly contrived definition and any discussion based on it, however, represents a red herring because in public and political contexts Solomon's definition is predominant, at least IMHO, and it is that definition which will directly affect public policy decisions.

I admit to deliberately paying little to no attention to Lawrence Solomon. Does Solomon list Al Gore and the mainstream media as global warming deniers?

How is it contrived to define a global warming denier as someone who denies that existing anthropogenic increases in greenhouse gases will increase the global temperature? It seems like the simplest and more straightforward definition, and I assume the definition people would guess when they first heard the phrase. - Enuja (talk) 22:01, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

(Unindent)

"Al Gore and the mainstream media as global warming deniers?" - Obviously not, these would be the ideological opposites from the deniers in his terminology. They are the ones who use the term "Deniers" as a pejorative against their opponents which is the bulk of Solomon's criticism.

Solomon asserts, and correctly so, that there are three main elements (I am paraphrasing from memory here) to what he terms the doomsday view of AGW as articulated by the IPCC, Al Gore, and most of the mainstream media:

The Earth actually is in a warming period.
The warming is being caused primarily by human activities (e.g. such as greenhouse gas emissions, land use changes, etc.).
The effects of the warming will be catastrophic.

The third point is important to justify things like the Kyoto protocol and large scale efforts to curb the production of greenhouse gases and/or other efforts which are likely to have large economic impacts on society. Eliminate any one of these three elements and the need for Kyoto simply evaporates.

Now the IPCC to some extent isn't the main proponent of #3, but they do play their part. Take for example the pronouncements by Trenberth regarding AGW causing more frequent and stronger hurricanes that lead to Christopher Landsea's resignation from the IPCC (because there was zero research to support those claims). Al Gore and most of the mainstream media, however, clearly push #3 on a regular basis.

This is, in effect, how people who dissent from the "declared" consensus have come to be called "Deniers" (which seeks to equate them with Holocaust Deniers) in the first place. If you think this is mere hype on Solomon's part, consider that James Hansen, who is almost synonymous with the AGW position, has likened "coal trains" destined for coal burning power plants to the "death trains" of the Nazi's in WWII, and called for the CEOs of fossil fuel related energy firms to be tried for crimes against humanity and nature.

In his series and his book, Solomon profiles notable scientists, statisticians, and economists who have put forth arguments which are inconsistent with one or more of these three elements. His point being, of course, that there is legitimate debate on ALL of these points despite the declared consensus that the "science is settled" and anyone who disagrees is a fringe whacko. Solomon adopts the title, The Deniers, as a means of shedding light on the tactics of those who claim the "science is settled". These people are simply engaging in ad hominem attacks (i.e. by labeling their opponents deniers) in the still on-going debate rather than actually addressing the points being raised by notable individuals with, in many cases, superior credentials to those who are attacking them. --GoRight (talk) 05:47, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

One doesn't have to think that the warming will be catastrophic to think that Kyoto (and, in fact, much more stringent reductions in carbon dioxide emissions) is a good idea. In fact, one just has to be conservative, in the sense of fearing change, to think that we should avoid increasing greenhouse gases in the environment. Personally, I think the world is likely to be a better place with economic innovation around new sources of energy instead of around new, slightly higher urban areas and making it possible to keep urban areas in very very low lying coastal areas. Even though the consesus is that the Earth is currently warming, one doesn't have to buy that to buy that the earth is going to warm in the future. In fact, I think that the current temperature and decadal temperature trends are red herrings on the issue of global warming. I think only the second point (speaking about future warming) is necessary to support Kyoto and more stringent emission controls. - Enuja (talk) 17:32, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"One doesn't have to think that the warming will be catastrophic to think that Kyoto (and, in fact, much more stringent reductions in carbon dioxide emissions) is a good idea." - Simply being a good idea won't justify the immense economic impact that Kyoto promises to impose. We're not going to cripple civilization and condemn countless millions to be forever stuck in poverty because Kyoto is kind of a good idea. That kind of impact requires catastrophic consequences to justify, which is why James Hansen, David King, James Lovelock, Trenberth, et. al. are clearly arguing that the changes spell a catastrophe for the planet unless action is taken.

"I think only the second point (speaking about future warming) is necessary to support Kyoto and more stringent emission controls." - Unless something bad is going to happen, why do we even care about #2? Especially when it looks like from a plant's perspective the extra CO2 would be a good thing. More plant growth = more food = good for everyone. Why are you against being able to produce more food to feed the world's starving masses? (There's a little hyperbole to spice up the conversation.) --GoRight (talk) 20:10, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"We're not going to cripple civilization and condemn countless millions to be forever stuck in poverty"...you mean the countless millions that have done so well during the last 100 years of unlimited use of fossil fuels? I find that one of the most galling claims in the debate. "We only want to burn more oil to help the poor people in Africa" - well, it's not working, and comparing current oil production and reserves with the demand that would be caused by lifting even a small part of the third world onto Western levels, it's obvious that this is a completely implausible idea. Perpetuating an economic system that has left much of Africa destitute and claiming its for the best of the African people is either stupid or dishonest. And of course there is no evidence at all that civilization will be crippled if we freeze or even reduce CO2 emissions. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:13, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I think you forget about emerging economies such as China and India. They make up a pretty significant proportion of the world's population and for some reason even the Kyoto protocol seems to think that they depend on fossil fuels. --GoRight (talk) 02:09, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more with Enuja. Your #3 is the red herring. I don't think that AGW is going to be catastrophic. Its simply economically foolish not to do something (and btw. i'm very firmly in Tol and Nordhaus' (two of LS' socalled "deniers") camp on this, rather than in Sterns). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 18:21, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Time out. This almost blew right past me. So you are saying that you agree with LS that Tol's and Nordhaus' positions are at odds with the doomsday view of AGW which would clearly include the Stern Review? --GoRight (talk) 20:19, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

First of all - there is no "doomsday view" in either Stern, Tol's or in Nordhaus' positions. I have no idea where you get that notion, except perhaps as another red herring. Tol and Nordhaus' economic analysis is the basis for the IPCC's report, which is why i'm rather laughing when LS is stating that they are "deniers". (Stern primarily differs from T&N in the discount rate, which thus makes for a different conclusion).

Of others that LS gets completely wrong is Solanki (as said before) and Von Storch (which was really funny). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:34, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Since we've been reviewing the ofcom decision recently perhaps this is an appropriate place to make use of these:

”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

Nah, those don't resemble #3 at all. Yea, right. --GoRight (talk) 19:52, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Theres just the little trouble that King actually didn't say whats quoted in #1. As you could also have read in the OfCom decision. Here's the real text from the independent . There is a large difference between 60 million years ago, between "only" and "most", as well as an ice-free Antarctica and an ice-sheet Antarctica. Lovelock's quote is completely nuts though. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:29, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Theres just the little trouble that King actually didn't say whats quoted in #1. As you could also have read in the OfCom decision." - Who says so? Certainly not King. King only claims he didn't say those things at the "House of Commons Select Committee in 2004" which is the only quote he provided. Here is the bit that preceded the two quotes provided above from the ofcom decision:

"Channel 4 said the source of Sir David’s views was his speech to the Climate Group on 27 April 2004 (not his testimony to the House of Commons Select Committee in 2004, as complained). Channel 4 referred to reports of his speech to the Climate Group, published at the time, which stated: ..."

So Channel 4 was relying on quotes from a completely different event than King referenced in his complaint AND as the report clearly highlights these quotes were never challenged by King:

"Channel 4 said there was no evidence to suggest that Sir David had been quoted inaccurately as in the three years since the first report in 2004 there was no attempt to correct or challenged them."

"Here's the real text from the independent ." - I'm not sure why you included this, other than to confirm that the quotes provided above were accurate? The first two sentences of the article are exactly as described above, so why are you pointing that out?

The lack of quotation marks should've told you that it wasn't a quote, but rather the journalists representation of what he said. It's as King replied to OfCom - something that goes with the territory to be misquoted by journalists. . Its btw. the journalists writeup of the exact same testimony. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

The ofcom was NOT ruling on these particular quotes, as you seem to suggest, their decision was limited to the Channel 4 complaints. King never issued any complaints regarding these reports directly. Nor can you take his written text from one event and use it to claim anything about a completely separate event when King has never claimed that he used the same material at both.

On the issue of quotation marks, contains "the rest of the globe could not sustain human life" within quotes and ) contains "the rest of the globe would not sustain human life" within quotes, and both are within the context of a discussion about Antarctica being the "best/only" place for mammals to live. So I guess you can try to argue that there is a substantive difference between "would" and "could" in this context but I just don't see one. Claiming that the rest of the planet will be uninhabitable by humans by the end of the century seems to fit the definition of a catastrophic consequence of AGW. Note that these two accounts of Sir David King's remarks are by different independent authors. Are you claiming a conspiracy on their part to misquote King? --GoRight (talk) 01:57, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

The first one, we've already established misquoted King - the second one makes no apologies for quoting the first one (ie. he quotes journalists - not King). And No - i'm not saying there is a conspiracy, what i'm saying is that journalists sometimes get things wrong. Perhaps you should take a look at the speech and the testimony - instead of reading a lot into what second hand accounts (and third hand in the latter case) say - instead of acknowledging that King says that this wasn't part of either his speech nor his testimony (both part of public record) - and that he never said that. It would btw. be surprising if he said so - since Antarctica wasn't the only place sustaining mammals 60 million years ago (and humans weren't thought of yet). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 02:25, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

"The first one, we've already established misquoted King ..." - We have done no such thing and if you think that we have you sadly mistaken. Exactly where has this been established?

"the second one makes no apologies for quoting the first one" - Interesting, I was unaware of this. Perhaps you can share some evidence of this? On what are you basing this claim?

"instead of acknowledging that King says that this wasn't part of either his speech nor his testimony" - Let me quote from the ofcom decision: "The Committee also noted that contemporaneous, unchallenged reports, of Sir David’s comments, had referred to “only habitable”." So the ofcom doesn't dispute my view of things and they never relied on the "only habitable" dispute in their decision. --GoRight (talk) 03:11, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps you should read the OfCom issue again. There most certainly is dispute on the "only" part in "only habitable". King and his speech/testimony says "most" not "only". That is in the OfCom decision. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 14:20, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I did last night. I agree that in King's second response he does dispute these accounts of his statements at Tony Blair’s Climate Group launch on 27 April. So, at this point we can't actually say that it has been established that he was misquoted. What has been established is that he claims he was misquoted. But we have two independent reports from independent authors who claim to be directly quoting him when he stated "the rest of the globe could/would not sustain human life". If this is correct it sheds significant doubt on the validity of King's account of what he actually said. So we seem to have the following points that require further clarification:

You claim that the second quote is merely a copy of the first. I claim that the would/could discrepancy calls this into doubt because if someone was merely copying a quote they would be unlikely to make that change. So unless you have some actual evidence that the second quote is merely a derivative of the first (i.e. the second author was merely quoting from the first author's material), I will continue to maintain that we have two independent reports of King's comments which are in agreement which would mean that King is either lying or mistaken about what he actually said at the Climate Group launch.
The quote I provide above from ofcom highlights that they did not actually take a position on whether these reports were misquotes or not and that they agreed these reports had not been challenged prior to the complaint they were addressing. Their ruling was solely based on the "breeding couples" discrepancy.
King's statements in the ofcom report only address the "most" vs. "only" wording dispute and does not directly address the statements quoted above, i.e. that "the rest of the globe could/would not sustain human life". Is this perhaps a clever dodge on the part of a man desperately trying to save face? In other words, by distracting everyone with the "most" vs. "only" wording and completely ignoring this part of his statements? This is obviously speculation on my part, but it is thus far no more speculative than your unsubstantiated assertion that the second author was actually quoting the first.

Unless and until these issues are adequately addressed I won't concede the point any more than you would. --GoRight (talk) 17:10, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Meaningless Edit Break

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)

(Unindent)

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 this 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 mostly like made the statements thus quoted (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)

Re Lovelock: I'll take any reasonable bet that billions of us will die before the century is over! Not that I'm going to profit much from it... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:37, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

LOL, yea, I agree. That IS a pretty safe bet, eh? No AGW required. --GoRight (talk) 21:42, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

"Lovelock's quote is completely nuts though." - So we agree on that at least. But of course the fact that YOU think Lovelock is nuts is irrelevant. The point is that Lovelock and others like him are spreading a message of doom, hence the doomsday view that you deny exists despite the fact that I am providing quotes. Even King's testimony before the House of Commons Select Committee as he provides in the ofcom report is designed to spell a doom and gloom outcome. And Hansen's death trains and crimes against humanity and nature? That's not a doomsday perspective in your mind?

I'm not saying that all IPCC followers are aligned with the doomsday view, but it is the doomsday view that LS is attacking and, ironically, for the same reasons you are attacking it here yourself ... because it is hogwash. How does it feel to be making the same arguments as LS? :) --GoRight (talk) 21:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

There are fools on all issues - its very very seldom one-sided. But its a very dangerous game to play to box everyone saying something similar in with people who say something extreme. Its like saying that every christian is a potential abortionist-bomber. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:49, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't think anyone was denying that a doomsday view exists. I think that the doomsday view is an absurd fringe view. It's not in the scientific mainstream, and it shouldn't be covered on general global warming articles, although there may be places on the encyclopedia that it should be fact-checked.

Catastrophic does not equal bad. I think entire countries will go underwater (Maldives and the like, again), many neighboorhoods will become uninhabitable, grapes won't grow in some of the great wine regions of the world, and a bunch of other bad things will happen. I don't think any of these are catastrophic (the Maldives has always been too close to the water, and there are going to be some great new wine regions) and at this point some of these consequences cannot be avoided, but I think they are bad. These bad things make it even more worth it to be doing things we should be doing anyway, including putting pollution-related costs (including greenhouse gases) into the economic costs of things and moving away from basing our economy on a finite energy resource. - Enuja (talk) 21:45, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Just to give some perspective about the term "catastrophic": The 2004 Indian Ocean earthquake killed about a quarter million people. Most people on Earth were not affected by this in the least. 9/11 has been called a catastrophe, and killed only about 3000. The term can very well be used even without spelling planetary-wide total doom and the end of civilization as we know it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:03, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

AEB

"It's not in the scientific mainstream ..." - Is James Hansen not part of the scientific mainstream? --GoRight (talk) 22:15, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

While I occasionally read climate change articles, I don't keep up with mainstream media coverage, nor do I care about personalities. Looking at his Misplaced Pages article, James Hansen appears to be part of the scientific mainstream, but he doesn't appear to be talking about catastrophic warming that will wipe humanity off of all continents except Antartica. It looks like he published something that brings up the possiblity of more rapid sea level rise than the IPCC currently says is more likely. Yes, it's in the scientific mainstream to do research, but that doesn't make a single paper of his the end-all and be-all of sea level rise predictions. - Enuja (talk) 01:16, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I would say Hansen's science is part of the mainstream. His choice of metaphors somewhat less so. Much of his actual work seems to be into the often (intentionally?) overlooked "excluding future rapid dynamical changes in ice flow" in the AR4. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 01:53, 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)