User talk:Cortonin

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

_

Contents

_

[edit] Welcome

Please sign messages left here with ~~~~. Thanks. Cortonin 11:04, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] folie a deux

Hi Cortonin, My personal correspondence with Stanley Krippner, Robert G. Jahn and the late Marcello Truzzi indicates Folie a Deux belongs in the same anomolie list as telepathy.(Just to keep you up to date.) I find it surprising it is so unknown and unwelcomed. Kazuba 6 Dec 04. 68.41.141.167

[edit] please take a look at the diffs on this page.

I noticed you put election controversy back in ongoing events. I appreciate this. Related information that you may find interesting is at Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Carrp. Kevin Baas | talk 05:55, 2004 Dec 15 (UTC)

Please note that in the 2nd and 3rd diffs I reverted Kevin Baas's changes back to Korath's version. There wasn't a consensus on the talk page that the election controversy was a ongoing event. I fully support the existence of pages documenting any irregularities in the election, my issue is with it being considered an ongoing event. Please reconsider your support of Kevin Baas's position on the RFC. Thanks. Carrp 12:54, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

(William M. Connolley 21:48, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)) You insist that there are (credible) models that do not predict warming. Can you provide some "Facts and evidence" to support this?

[edit] Charles Darwin

User:Fastfission and other supporters, including William M. Connolley, have been on a crusade to delete the mention of Charles Darwin and Abraham Lincoln sharing a birthday. I have remained civil but others have been flaming. FastFission posted a biased comment on RfC which I have made neutral (I hope). Would you be interested in supporting my side? If so, please start at Talk:Charles_Darwin#Summary. Of course, that's my side, but the other side is strongly represented in the rest of the Talk page.Thanks Vincent 06:03, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

You may find the following of interest: [1]


[edit] Alfred Wegener

Hi Cortonin,

Do you know who wrote the section on 'the inertia of concensus' in the 'concensus science' article? It mentions Alfred Wegener.

Please let me tell you the Alfred Wegener story. The Alfred Wegener story is a fine example of Thomas Kuhn's description of how science works.

The aim of science is to find a model that will account for as much of the observations as possible in a coherent framework. Wegener had a lot of tantalizing geological findings, similarities in the geological record of widely separated continents. But geology could not account for the movement. So, tantalizing as the findings were, it seemed at the time that it just wasn't going to fit with the overarching aim of science: to give the observations its natural place a coherent framework.

Scientists have learned that it pays off to be very cautious with additional assumptions, shoring up a theory. At the time of Wegeners geological findings, assuming that the Earth's crust is actually a large number of plates was about as far-fetched as assuming that another planet had collided with Earth, reversing the Earth rotation.

In the 1960's the geology of plate tectonics was discovered bit by bit, and an amazing picture began to emerge. This is the theory of continental drift. Now for the first time it was possible to take account of the Wegener findings in a large, coherent framework. In a sense, the theory of moving continents had been embryonic for decades, suddenly finding its natural place in plate tectonics theory. As plate tectonic theory was first suggested, itself still in an early stage of development, the Wegener findings added credibility to plate tectonic theory, and vice versa.

According to Thomas Kuhn, this is how science works, and how it should work. In order to fulfill its potential, a scientific community must consist of both people who are bold and people who are conservative. The bold scientists will more likely explore alternative avenues, usually dead ends, and their efforts are quickly forgotten. However some of the explorations produce fruitful alternatives. The majority of the scientific community expects that the known theories will be sufficient to account for all observations. This gives them great endurance in attempts to provide this account, and there are many examples that tenacity in belief in the known theories was eventually vindicated.

So, the fact that there were decades between the first tantalizing findings, and a revolutionary change in geologic thinking is, according to Kuhn, the way it should be. It was only by the end of the 1960's that the knowledge was avialable to compose a new geology that could rival or even exceed the known theories in coherency and scope. Kuhn complains that people very often people project modern knowledge into the past, en then mock the scientist of the past for not seeing the "obvious" right away. Cleon Teunissen 15:53, 24 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhouse gas

Cortonin, thanks for setting us all straight on the Greenhouse gas page w/r to spelling. Duk 13:11, 1 Feb 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Consensus Science

Cortonion; I'm not sure whether we are agreeing or disagreeing. I think the term "consensus science" should be deleted because that is not how science should be done, and truthfully, our current administration is trying to foist its own "consensus science" on the American people by stacking supposedly scienfic committees with pseudo-scientists and lay people who have particular points of view. He has dismssed two of the most qualified members from one committee who disagreed with his favorite position and has ignored or edited the reports put out by scientists who don't agree with his point of view. It is important that people know that science is not done by consnsus, because we have "leaders" trying to tell us that it is. srlasky 08:15, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

Concur here. Science is founded in empiricism, not sociology. If science is consensus science, it is that not of people but of phenomena. That is, something is judged as scientific, such as "water evaporates into water vapor" not according to the number of people that believe this statement to be true, but according to the number of times that "water evaporates into water vapor", empiricly. Kevin Baastalk 21:54, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

So, we agree on what the definition of consensus science is, I guess what we don't agree on, then, is whether "consensus science" needs to exist as a separate topic. I don't think it rates its own page, that's why I was for deleting it. srlasky 19:50, 2005 Feb 2 (UTC)

I agree that the term exists. There are lots of articles written about it and most talk about how dangerous the concept is, especially now, with the anti-science bent of our current administration. Michael Crichton's article at http://www.able2know.com/forums/about42229-0.html is pretty much to the point, but, again, I don't see how you can discuss "Consensus Science" as an article separate from the Scientific Method without opening up a pit of POVs. My feeling is that "Consensus Science" should be discussed within the Scientific Method, not separate from it.srlasky 04:26, 2005 Feb 3 (UTC)

[edit] Wave loading

My compliments on your definition at Wave loading. I think your words really help to improve understanding of the concept. --DanielCD 20:40, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

It pains me to have to turn away a compliment, but the reorganization of the article wasn't by me, it was by User:Stirling Newberry. I fixed one wikilink and corrected two section headings by changing upper-case letters to lower case. That's all I've done in the last ten days. They're improvements but not exactly earth-shaking.  :) JamesMLane 10:01, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Unforunately all of the edits were not only reverted, but reverted with extreme prejudice. Given the procedings before arbcom, I strongly believe that this page should be escalated to some larger community decision making mechanism. Unfortunately the owning editors of the page are reverting even this, which leads me to believe they are acting in bad faith.

Stirling Newberry 18:33, 25 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Revert Rule

Cortonin, you should be aware that under Wikipedia policy, it qualifies as a revert any time someone removes a section someone else deleted or puts back a section that someone else removed, regardless of whether there are other unrelated accompanying changes. These are often referred to as "complex reverts" on the three revert rule notice board. Hence your recent edit of global warming labeled "Not RV" [2] would count as a third revert towards those sections of the document that are the same as the previous two reverts.

I just wanted to point this out and hopefully warn you before you go careening over the three revert rule cliff. Dragons flight 20:05, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming (theory)

Hi Cortonin, you wrote in the summary: "I still say it's a double standard to call every theory a theory except global warming".

O.k. I think the problem is that we mix two terms in the article which are related and which cause the confusion. The two terms we should differ between are "global warming" and "global warming theory".

The first term, deals with the increase of average temperature on earth. Note that the definition of this term does not include anything about the reasons for the effect. Furthermore we can in principle measure the effect - there is no deep theory involved - we just take a couple of thermometers, measure the temperature every day and can see whether the average temperature rises or not. For this definition it is not even of importance if global warming is happening or not.

The second term is about models which try to explain why global warming is happening. Modeling something is a theory and we even mention the term in our introduction: "Global warming theories attempt to account for the rise in average global temperatures since ...". IMHO we should highlight "global warming theories" as well by the way.

If you still don't believe me, then please google for "define:global warming" and you will see that almost every definition refers to "increase of temperature" and not "theory that the earth is getting warmer" or something similar.

best regards -- mkrohn 20:44, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration Committee case opening

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against William M. Connolley. Please bring any additional evidence you may have to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley/Evidence. Thank you. -- Grunt   ҈  05:12, 2005 Mar 22 (UTC)

[edit] Advocate request

I may be interested, please e-mail, more details and exactly what it is you want from the arbitration process. You can e-mail by going to my user page and clicking on the e-mail this user option in the side-bar. I must inform you that I have previously specialized in advising people before the arbitration process, and have succesfully avoided arbitration but I digress. Anyway, I recently declined a similar request based solely on its particular situation. I believe I can better serve you, but if you would rather have an advocate more experienced in the workings of the ArbCom I can refer you to one. -JCarriker 23:31, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] centrifugal force

Hi Cortonin

I noticed your edit of the centrifugal force article. When I entered the thread about the garden greenhouse, I knew it was dangerous to attract your attention to me.
I am unhappy with your edit. Since you have demonstrated your readiness for edit war, I will not revert.~
If you look through the history of the centrifugal force article, you can see that in the past I have written huge versions of the centrifugal force article, with lots of stuff about relativity. Those were really ridiculous. I think now that information on general relativity belongs in articles about general relativity. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 17:38, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Why you think I am "dangerous" is beyond me. Cortonin | Talk 19:07, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, I know that it is beyond you. That's the problem.
Ah well, it was nice while it lasted. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 19:33, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cortonin,
I have a comment to what you wrote in the centrifugal force article. First the example of, say, a car, with a large velocity with respect to the road it is traveling on. When the driver hits the brakes, inertia manifests itself and it takes quite some force to bring the car to a halt. But inertia cannot make a car accelerate. The best inertia can do is in a situation with zero drag; a space-ship will keep going with the same velocity. But inertia alone will not accelerate a car, inertia is resistance to change.

Second example: an olympic hammer thrower is rapidly spinning as he is working up the angular velocity. As he is spinning the tension in the rod going from the weight to his gripping hands is transmitting the centripetal force, the force directed towards the common center of mass of the athlete and the weight he is spinning around. The centripetal force is maintaining the circular motion of the weight, and the centrifugal manifestation of inertia is (unsuccesfully) opposing that circular motion.

The very moment that the weight is released by the athlete the weight is no longer subjected to the centripetal force, so the centrifugal manifestation of inertia immediately stops too, as there is no longer a centripetal force to oppose. After the weight has been released it does not accelerate away from the athlete, the weight will follow the parabolic trajectory of an unaccelerated object, losing some velocity to friction with the air.

There is in this sequence no point where the weight is being accelerated by the centrifugal manifestation of inertia. At the moment that the weight is released by the athlete all forces stop, and the weight flies on with inertial motion (only a bit of drag from the air).

When the athlete was working up the angular velocity he was spinning fast, but as soon as he has released the weight it flies away without angular velocity. The acceleration of the weight was a build-up as the athlete was spinning up. During the tenth of a second of the athlete releasing his grip the velocity of the weight didn't increase, that velocity had been build up in the seconds before. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 22:47, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


[...]We will take an observer, named Cleon, and place him in a closed elevator in outer space (with no gravity). Cleon cannot observe anything outside of his elevator, and can only observe the inside of the elevator.[...] Cortonin | Talk 02:28, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cortonin,
the thought experiment of the secluded capsule is well known of course, and here is how I have come to think about the impications of that thought experiment.

As long as I am prevented from having a peep outside, I have only my inside observations to go by, and if the radius of the circle is very large, and my instruments are not sensitive enough, I won't be able to distinguish the subtle differences in tidal force distribution between centripetal aceleration, linear acceleraton, or the acceleration associated with standing on the surface of a planet. I will know that either of the three options might the situation I am actually in, but without additional information that is unknowable for me, so I should not base any conclusions on it.

When I am allowed to look outside, then I start observing like there's no tomorrow! Because I am suddenly allowed to look at what is going on from a much wider perspective. And the scientist in me jumps at the opportunity!

If the capsule I am travelling in turns out to be accelerating linearly I think: "OK, the floor was/is pushing me to accelerate me. When I was holding the ball, the strength of my muscels was keeping the ball in co-acceleration with the capsule. When I released the ball it immediately stopped co-accelerating, it just cruised on with the velocity it had, and in a second the ball was overtaken by the floor of the accelerating capsule, and the capsule hit the ball."

If the capsule I am travelling in turns out to be moving in a large circle the same reasoning as above is valid. The acceleration is at right angles to the momentary direction of motion, but the acceleration is the same. (I visualise that by thinking of a very large circle, and a very large parabola. In a parabolic trajectory the velocity-component in the, say, x-direction is uniform motion, and the velocity-component in the y-direction is proportional to the square of y. If the radius of the circle is very large compared to the dimensions of the capsule, the difference between linear acceleration and the acceleration towards the center of rotation is just to small to be detectable.) So: when I released the ball it immediately stopped co-accelerating, it just cruised on with the velocity it had, and in a second the ball was overtaken by the floor of the accelerating capsule, and the capsule hit the ball."


If the capsule I am travelling in turns out to be standing on the surface of a planet, then my interpretation will depend on whether I am familiar with general relativity or not. Being familiar with general relativity I say:"Ah, I am not in outer space, far enough from Sun and planets to be in zero-curvature space-time, it turns out that I am on he surface of a planet. If this surface would not push against me I would move along a geodesic. However, since the ground is exerting a force against me I am prevented from moving along a geodesic. When I released a ball, it instantly started moving along a geodesic. A second later this geodesic-following, inertial motion stopped, as the ball contacted the surface of the Earth."

Before and after So I make a logical distinction between before I was allowed to look outside, and after I was allowed to look outside. Before I was allowed to look outside I didn't know. After I was allowed to gather as much relevant information as possible, I based my assesment on my available body of knowledge. I always strive to expand the reach of my perspective.

But the three assessments do have something in common: in all three scenario's the key moment was when contact was broken, when the ball was released from grip. After the ball is released the ball moves inertially.(for as long as it lasts) In zero-curvature space-time, inertial motion is motion is a straight line.

On the surface of a planet, I am in curved space-time. The spatial curvature is minute (in the solar system the curvature of space is responsible for the perihelion shift of Mercury) but I do notice the effects of gravitatonal time dilation. The gravitational time dilation affects the motion of objects, like the hammer of the hammerthrower, that follows a parabolic trajectory.

The centrifugal manifestation of inertia is something that is happening in zero-curvature space. (On Earth you get a more smooth circular motion if you have the axis of rotation parallel to the direction of Earth's gravity, in order to have the circular motion happen in the dimensions that are uncurved. (The space-time curvature around a gravitating body is spherically symmetrical.))

The gravitational interaction between moving bodies transfers momentum between them. The mediator of this interaction is curvature of space-time. (curvature of space-time and 'gravitational field' being one and the same thing.) Uncurved space-time is just plain old uncurved space-time. Uncurved space-time cannot transfer momentum.

In uncurved space time objects tend to move in straight lines. In uncurved space-time a force is required to make an object deviate from moving in a straight line. So when something is rotating (or otherwise accelerating) in uncurved space-time, you can tell; when a force is required something is accelerating. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 14:35, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


When you consider it from the non-rotating reference frame, Cortonin | Talk 15:03, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cortonin,

I have studied this matter extensively, both in the context of newtonian dynamics and in the context of general relativity, and I have come to the following conclusions.

I agree with the scientists who are of the opinion that the physics that is taking place is independent of the choice of reference frame of the observer. Whatever my thoughts are, the universe is doing its own thing.

For example, if I am in an electric car, designed to regain energy when it is switched to braking, then the manifestation of inertia will push the generators, and the battery system will be recharged. So manifestation of inertia can really pack a punch. Now if I would want to do some kinematic calculations, then whatever frame of reference I choose, all calculations should yield the same amount of energy pumped in to the battery system on braking. Because whatever frame of reference I choose, the car and the battery system don't know my choice, it just doesn't matter. (The calculation is most simple in the inertial frame of reference, of course.)

Now if I choose a frame of reference that is rotating with respect to the inertial frame of reference then seen from that rotating frame of reference everything seems to be turning around, going in circles. That is apparent motion, and I am interested in the real motion. I just choose the local inertial frame of reference. If I choose the local inertial frame then one force law is sufficient to do the job: F=ma.

As I write in the centrifugal force article, it is sometimes convenient to use a coordinate system that is rotating with respect to the inertial frame of reference. I give the example of calculating stresses in rotating helicopter blades.

But if a piece would break off one of the helicopterblades, then its kinematics is no longer influenced by the rotating blades it is leaving behind. It's not rotating any more, so it is no longer convenient to look at as seen from a coordinate system that is rotating.

If I want to calculate how a ball will move when it is released in a chamber inside a rotating space-station, then I figure: as soon as contact is broken the ball will simply move in a straight line with respect to the local inertial frame, cruising on with the velocity it had when it was released, just inertial motion. Then I can calculate where that straight line will intersect the floor of the rotating space station.

I think it is superfluous to use a coordinate system that is rotating with respect to the inertial frame of reference. (Except when it happens to be convenient, of course!) It is a burden in trying to understand motion, because using a coordinate system that is rotating with respect to the inertial reference frame introduces apparent motion (and/or disguises real motion) and that is confusing. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 12:45, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cortonin,

About conservation of energy
James Presscott Joule conducted the following type of experiment: he had a weight attached to a rope, the rope was connected via pulleys to a calorimeter, and pulling the rope caused the water to be stirred vigorously. Joule measured how much warmer the water became every drop of the weight, and he observed that it matched the calculated amount of work done by gravity on the weight to within measuring accuracy, indicating conservaton of energy.

If inside the secluded space capsule a weight is released to move freely, it will from that moment on move inertially. In a second the weight is overtaken by the floor and then the two collide. In this collision, as in any collision, kinetic energy is converted to heat. The amount of kinetic energy that is converted to heat only depends on the relative velocity.

If the experimental setup of Joule would be used inside the secluded space capsule, then it would take more time for the floor to catch up with the weight. The tension in the rope is in itself the amount of force that is sufficient to co-accelerate the weight. But the other end of the rope is not securely attached, it is running of a rope-coil, thus churning the water in the calorimeter. So the weight is not accelerated as hard as the secluded capsule as a whole, and the kinetic energy is "harvested", converted to heat of the water in the calorimeter instead of being converted to heat of the weight and the floor on final collision.

The working principle is that for acceleration a force is required. If there is not sufficient force exerted on an individual object, that object will "lag behind" with respect to the secluded capsule as a whole. The force that is doing the work is the force that is accelerating the secluded capsule.

Transformations
What I do is that I refrain from doing any transformation. I get the impression that you are so accustomed to transforming to a rotating frame that you assume that I first transform to a rotating frame and subsequently transform to an inertial frame of reference. But I just don't transform at all.

Appereances
In my opinion the science of physics should not be about appereances. That should be dealt with by people trained in a field of expertise such as cognitive psychology.

My approach to physics is to rely strongly on the guidance of Occam's Razor. If I don't need to transform, I don't transform. For example, the manifestation of inertia that is associated with linear acceleration is the same physics as the manifestation of inertia that is associated with circular motion. In the case of circular motion there is, besides the acceleration, a consirable sideways velocity, but since that velocity is constant it does not alter in any way the physics that is going on. By looking at both linear acceleration and centripetal acceleration from a inertial frame of reference, I achieve unification. It's the same manifestation of inertia in both cases, so I just don't complicate the appereance by treating them as separate phenomena.

In calculation I will of course employ a rotating coordinate system whenever that saves me time and effort. But in visualising what is going on I consistently use an inertial point of view.

The entire family of all inertial frames of reference is a stage where physics is taking place. Since all these frames are indistinguishable as far as the physics is concerned, they act as if they are one big frame, the inertial frame of reference. If I were to use a rotating frame of reference then I have in that rotating frame a law of motion that is valid only in that particular frame. The formula for the centrifugal force in a particular rotating frame contains the rotation rateω, of that rotating frame with respect to the inertial frame of reference.

Every time I perform a calculation with a rotating coordinate system I need to incorporate ω. So really, every time I perform a calculation with a rotating coordinate system I am referring to the inertial frame of reference. Actually, all calculations using a rotating frame refer to the inertial frame of reference!

So I have come to the conclusion that the inertial frame of reference is the central stage of physics. A a matter of fact, I think it is the only stage. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 18:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

If you were an engineer who needed to consider the forces affecting a horse on a merry-go-round, [...] then you would be calculating the effects of centrifugal forces acting on the horse. [...] The description on the wiki page should reflect this usage. Cortonin | Talk 16:37, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Ehhh, Cortonin? In the centrifugal force article that I wrote I describe that in calculating for example the stresses in the rotating blades of a helicopter it is convenient to use a coordinate system that is co-rotating with the helicopter blades. I also referred to that in one of my previous message to you. The current centrifugal force articel is reflecting the usage you mention. --Cleon Teunissen | Talk 18:29, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greenhouse mumble, mumble

The discussion is a tad hard to follow, but I noticed that some things which seem unmentioned are in first few pates of Google Scholar "greenhouse effect" glass [3] (SEWilco 03:29, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Responses

Sure, my response was emotional rather than rational - my response to Ed. It was yet another attack on science - and it left me shaking in anger. There is a difference there. In essence, to call science "just another advocay group" is part of the developing attack on science which is being pushed as part of the right wing agenda. Ever had students walk out of class when you start to talk about natural selection, talk about it in the most innocuous way? Ever read the literature which tells students that they should do this? Do you live in a world where a Florida legislator introduced a bill that can, in essence, allow students to sue their professors for teaching evolution? Where junk denials of science are taken as gospel truth? Where rangeland scientists are dismissed by ranchers as "environmentalists" and where the journal Ecology is called a partisan magazine? Where your senator called global warming the "greatest hoax perpetuated on the American people"? And, dig through the talk pages - Ed is a skeptic on evolution as well.


As for the science...I disagree with you on your interpretation that there is no evidence for warming. You yourself pointed out the measurement of warming, so I find it hard to conclude" I don't really see much of a case having been made for any significant warming. More to the point, there is a reason why we spend so many years getting a degree in "Subfield Y of Field X". There are basic theories in community ecology which ecosystem ecologists don't understand. I can read the papers, I can look at the outputs. Once upon a time I tried to keep up with what was going on, but then I lost interest and left it alone. I came back to the field at two points in time when I worked with people in the field of climate change. I cannot, as a non-specialist, critically evaluate GCMs. I can look at warming trends, look at the way they are constructed, and see that they appear logical. I can evaluate statistics, I understand the difference between independence, I know the underlying assumptions of a number of models and where violations of those assumptions are likely to make a difference or not. I can look at the papers that Silverback provided links to...I read through them and was surprised by how little they said. Nonetheless, without knowing the context, why those papers ignore post-1996 data (which is where the satellite data shows warming), I can't really critique them. The reason why I am inclined to accept the majority view is due to the fact that, even in my own field, unless I read a paper to review it I can miss major flaws. Last year, I reviewed a paper with a strong community ecology bias which was written by remote sensing people. Their data was solide. Their analyses were sound. Their conclusions made no sense in areas because they were unaware of certain key elements of theory, or more likely, they just overlooked them. A + B = C. Seemed simple enough. Unfortunately, they missed the the whole part of the literature which said that, although B appears to be B, it's actually most likely to be D. And A + D is not C.

I understand the difference between politics, activism and science. I am sympathetic to environmentalists, but I often find them both silly and misinformed. I am too much the scientist in areas where I should not be - it took me a while to learn that telling people that metaphysics is ridiculous because there is no evidence for it is a waste of time. And I understand cognitive dissonance enough to accept an experiential basis for my belief in a God while being fully aware that experiential evidence is worthless scientifically. And I often assimilate data and opinions without fully analysing them until I am forced to. Editing the race article I realised that I had contradictory opinions, so I had to discard my opinions and look at the data. I have far stronger opinions about race than I do about climate change.

Attack my opinions and you force me to re-examine them, look harder at my interpretations. Attack my politics and I can only shrug - I am intensely interested in politics, but I have spent most of my life either under a government that has no interest in my interests, or in a country where I cannot vote. But define the scientific method out of the argument, say that the scientific view is no different from the republican view or the democratic view or the big business view and you attack the only real tool a person has to view reality. Ed alone would warrant only a shrug. The fact that the right wing of the republican party has said that truth is only one POV (the whole reality based community quote) and you are undermining the basis of society. And that warrants anger. Guettarda 16:19, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I may have expressed myself badly. It isn't that I think that scientists are unbiased. I don't believe that. But I do believe that science, as a tool, is among the least biased tools that we have available, and the only one that has a real chance of getting close to the truth. Of course the scientific method assumes that it is wrong, assumes that hypotheses and theories are wrong (and I personally don't even believe in laws of science - I think of the word as a historical artefact). After all, I'm an ecologist - after 150 years we have one really good generalisation.
As for the statement that the belief in God is bad judgement (to paraphrase) - from an empiricist point of view I would say that's pretty reasonable. I believe in God, but I could never demonstrate that believe, never stick a p-value onto it. You say: In the case of the environmental sciences, the people who go into these fields do so because they have a passionate interest in protecting the environment. As a result, scientists working in the environmental sciences approach their work through a lense of the environment being in danger and they being its savior. While an interest in the environment helped bring me into my science, while I was an activist at heart, science drew me in a different direction. At the same time, there is no way to conclude that an area with <1% intact forest cover, with very low rates of establishment from seed, is anything other than "in danger". Sure, people tend to love the field they are in. If you did not love your field of work it would be torture to complete a PhD. The problem with your statement is that it is logically flawed, and if that truly represents the way you see environmental scientists, then your conclusions are flawed as well.
  • In the case of the environmental sciences, the people who go into these fields do so because they have a passionate interest in protecting the environment.
This is not necessarily the case. People who go into environmental sciences tend to have an interest in nature. But that is true of a large proportion of the population. On the other hand, modellers are people who love numbers and programming. I have known modellers who have no real interest in nature. So, your premise is flawed.
  • As a result, scientists working in the environmental sciences approach their work through a lense of the environment being in danger and they being its savior.
Even if your premise were true, this would only hold if environmental scientists were all unethical. You are, thus, calling me unethical. But apart from that, it doesn't match with most of my colleagues. In my experience the opposite is true - most environmental scientists make no effort to influence policy makers. They operate under the premise that, if the science is good someone will bring it to the interest of policy makers. Again, I come back to the question - if you have <1% of a habitat remaining, if you have dozens of species which, based on our current understanding of demographic processes are in severe danger of extinction - is the conclusion that the habitat-type is threatened a reflection of pre-existing bias, or is it just a reasonable analysis of the information at hand? If forest that regrows on abandoned agricultural land supports <5% of the species that would probably have been there before, does that mean that you are alarmist to point of the fact that abandoned agricultural land is unlikely to provide useful habitat without management intervention - is that alarmist? If it is unreasonable it's unreasonable because we don't know for a fact that management will help (if human intervention to replace the missing tree species will work at all). Of course, to say that the loss of this habitat is a bad thing is a value judgement - one that I will make as a person, but which I will not make as a scientist. That distinction is made all the time in environmental science. Now, it's reasonable to say that, if we lose these species which provide X benefits, we may incur Y costs. Is there a bias - sure, because if you had no bias you might not be interested in finding out what the cost of that loss would be. All applied science has some bias. But to say that someone should not be trusted because their work is driven by an interest in the field, to say that we should discount the work of all economists who are interested in drawing a salary, or of all doctors who are interested in getting patients to survive (btw, I don't consider doctors scientists in general, but some are)... We end up with a situation in which we can only trust work done by people who have no interest whatsoever in the field. And I wouldn't trust them because they don't have enough interest to get "good data" - they are likely to be sloppy in their data collection and analysis because they just don't care one way or the other...
Obviously there are idiots across the spectrum. I often have little patience with the environmental movement. Environmentalism and environmental science are not one and the same. The environmental movement has its agenda and its POV. Some of it I like some of it I don't. But it does not dictate either my science or my interpretation of my data. Guettarda 21:20, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)
You miss my point entirely. On what data is your assumption that environmental scientists (and I assume, as I did before, that you use this in the broad sense) are "environmentalists" based? In addition, how do you define "environmentalists"? I assume in the activist sense, based on how you spoke of them. And, yes, if the scientists allow their own biases to influence their work, and if they allow others a free pass on allowing bias to influence their work, they are, by definition, guilty of grave misconduct. You need to ask yourself a few questions
  • How do you define "environmental scientist"
  • How do you define "environmentalist"
  • If a reviewer allows fundamentally flawed research to be published, is that reviewer not negligent?
  • If a doctoral advisor allows a student to present fundamentally flawed data, is that person not acting in a highly unethical manner?
  • If a head of department, dean, etc., allows such negligent and unethical behaviour to take place, is that person not also complicit?
For your assumpts to be true, huge swaths of our scientific establishment - university deans, directors of government research labs, directors at NSF, must be highly unethical. More to the point, you are calling me highly unethical, because I have reviewed these manuscripts and found them to be logically consistent. Guettarda 23:04, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] William M. Connolley's Reverts

Because despite claiming that the 20:44, 21 Apr 2005 was a revert I can figure out what he reverted to since he remove a whole load of material when compared to his earlyer versionsGeni 03:57, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence, not Talk

Looks like everyone forgot what page they were on. [4] (SEWilco 16:16, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] IPCC

Cortonin, could explain to which part of the article you refer to exactly? Most of the disputed text is quotes. Do you refer to the following part?

"The fact that the IPCC reports are widely cited [2] [3] as supporting material is ample evidence of the respect they have earned within the climate science community [4] [5]."

-- mkrohn 12:58, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi Cortonin, I kept most of your edits (image, expert->researcher,respected,category and so on), but removed the length quotations and additions in the criticism section (well, you probably expected it ;-). best regards -- mkrohn 12:58, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] paper

Hi Cortonin, concerning the paper you cited I would like to ask you something, but would prefer doing that in private email. Since you seem to not have entered an email address here in Wikipedia I would like to ask you to contact me: krohn at itp dot uni-hannover dot de. Thanks -- mkrohn 11:24, 3 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] unexplained reverts

Thanks for drawing my attention to the policy. I didn't explain my revert of you because I in the main agree with WC's reasons but I see that probably isn't the best way of going about things. I will be more careful in future on Global Warming Pages. Most of my reverts are due to a single revert war in which we have been unable to resolve things by discussion. I've sought a third opinion but no luck. So I take your criticism re global warming but as to the Greater Serbian edit war I really have tried to discuss things. Dejvid 16:15, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Uncertainty principle

Hello. "Cultural Appearances" with a capital "A" is not a correct title for a section, by Wikipedia conventions. It should be "Cultural appearances" with a lower-case "a". Michael Hardy 20:31, 9 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin

Given the fact that only two of the people involved in the longstanding dispute over the climate change articles are in this case, any arbitration action against either of those two will likely not be effective in stopping these edit wars - even temporarily. After giving several days for my fellow arb com members to object, I now ask you to file a new request for arbitration against other users you feel have been part of these edit wars for some time. Don't bother naming people on 'your side' of the dispute; I'm sure the other party to this case will do that. File at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration, creating a section for 'Climate change dispute' (or adding to it if the other party has already created it) and ask for that dispute to be added to your case. --mav 13:15, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Temporary injunction

Copied here from Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin#Temporary injunction:

Since revert wars between the Cortonin and William M. Connolley have continued through this arbitration, both users are hereby barred from reverting any article related to climate change more than once per 24 hour period. Each and every revert (partial or full) needs to be backed up on the relevant talk page with reliable sources (such as peer reviewed journals/works, where appropriate). Administrators can regard failure to abide by this ruling as a violation of the WP:3RR and act accordingly. Recent reverts by Cortonin [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] by William M. Connolley [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] Additional reverts by others involved in these revert wars may result in them joining this case.

--mav 22:42, 23 May 2005 (UTC)


[edit] 3RR report

I don't know why that 3RR report was not acted on. I have delt with it.Geni 00:19, 24 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Milbourne Christoper Entry and Link Added

25 May 05 Kazuba

[edit] Arbitration Committee case merged

The Arbitration Committee has accepted the case against JonGwynne to be merged with the current case at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin. Please bring any additional evidence you may have to Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/William M. Connolley and Cortonin/Evidence. Thank you. -- sannse (talk) 18:54, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Adminship

I am up for adminship. Since we have clashed in the past, I feel it only right that I let you know in case you want to oppose my nomination. Guettarda 16:50, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Climate dispute arbitration case

A final decision has been reached in the climate dispute arbitration case. →Raul654 14:57, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] "CAUTIONARY NOTICE TO THE READER" - a warning

Could you please stop spamming article talk pages with this "cautionary" rant? IMO you're being disruptive and abusing the function of the talk pages, so if you don't cut it out I may block you from editing. -- Hadal 9 July 2005 07:42 (UTC)

You're not simply commenting on them; you're airing (read: spamming) your dirty laundry, and in doing so you're casting aspersions toward those with whom you disagree. Article talk pages are not the place to complain about an ArbCom decision; but I suspect you know this already. -- Hadal 9 July 2005 07:49 (UTC)
I might accept such a reasoning if the spammogram itself weren't rather slanted. These articles are not on my watchlist as I don't normally edit them, but from what I've read of your ArbCom case, you're misrepresenting their decision. Disagreeing with them is one thing; pasting an incendiary rant on all related talk pages is quite another. You suggest impropriety (i.e., that the ArbCom is enforcing its POV in the face of policy) in an effort to discredit the article and its authors. In other words, you're poisoning the well. Please stop. -- Hadal 9 July 2005 07:59 (UTC)
You're entitled to have an opinion, but I don't agree with your representation of events any more than you agree with mine. Regardless, I am done editing for the day. — Cortonin | Talk 9 July 2005 08:04 (UTC)
If you believe I've abused my abilities in any way, you are more than welcome to lodge a complaint. My reasons for reverting you are given above, and I stand by them. Your poisonous spammogram added nothing to the discussion(s) and was an abuse of the article talk pages' function. If you wish to complain about the ArbCom decision, kindly find a different venue. If you wish to continue spamming your invective, I will block you as I would any other disruptive user. -- Hadal 9 July 2005 09:57 (UTC)
After misrepresenting the ArbCom in order to discredit a slew of articles, you're probably not the best person to be speculating about my motives. At least be honest; calling the ArbCom a bunch of jackbooted bullies who contravene a core Wikipedia policy is a personal attack, whether you name the committee members individually or not. Don't try to weasel out of your own words. And yes, my words to William did explain things clearly: I reverted you because you were littering the talk pages with poisonous piffle. If William had spammed nineteen talk pages with such dreck, I would have warned him just the same. You've both committed many hours to Wikipedia's climate articles, but that commitment does not absolve either of you from adhering to Wikipedia's policies. You made a bunch of dodgy edits and I reverted them. By your logic, anyone who reverts or blocks a George W. Bush vandal (myself frequently included) must be a neocon. Do you not see how silly that is? -- Hadal 9 July 2005 10:59 (UTC)

[edit] Map examples

Thought you might like to see Mollweide projection. (SEWilco 08:45, 13 July 2005 (UTC))

[edit] WMC broke his parole can you help me?

WMC is up to his old tricks. Can you help me to get justice. William M. Connolley reverted the article of the lomborg whitout any explanation or any note in the talk pages[15]. This constitutes a violation of his parole[16]. How can I instigate that the appropriate action is taken.--MichaelSirks 19:10, 24 October 2005 (UTC)

There is a debate at [17] whether the rules of Wikipedia should also apply to William M. Connolley or whether he should be placed above these rules. --Lumidek 00:18, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Arbitration re-opened

Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 has been re-opened. Please place evidence at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Evidence. Proposals and comments may be placed on Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2/Workshop. Fred Bauder 01:17, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Final decision

The arbitration committee has reached a final decision in the Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute 2 case. Raul654 18:09, 23 December 2005 (UTC)


          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_adminship/William_M._Connolley_2

[edit] Consensus Science

Is the subject of a second RfD [18], please comment (and spread the word) as you see fit. --SpinyNorman 21:08, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for the late notice, but I have recently nominated the "consensus science" page for deletion. For my arguments on this, please see that article's discussion page and its deletion page. Deletion policy says that I should tell frequent contributors to the page about the proposed deletion, and I only just saw this today. Luckily, I see that SpinyNorman has already informed you of my decision.

Sorry for any inconvenience. Dicksonlaprade 16:02, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/o/r/User_talk%7ECortonin_dfe9.html"