Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Climate change dispute/Evidence

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Contents

[edit] Re: Cortonin's Addendum 3:

This is far more complex than Cortonin implies. It takes two to have a war. Anyway I created Solar greenhouse (technical) on Mar 17 and moved the Real greenhouse section from Greenhouse effect to it in hopes of defusing the edit battle there. The battle moved. On Mar 22 I asked them to stop and volunteered to try to write a compromise article (although I was not totally neutral). WMC accepted and Cortonin sort of accepted. I asked them to back off for a time to hopefully get input from others. I did the rewrite and Coronin almost immediately did a ten part edit to conform the article to his POV. I reverted and asked him to give it a chance and began to try to make it more neutral. Cortonin seems most impatient and has responded with several edits and lengthy talk explanations that strike me as being off the mark and essentially confusing to the issue. He now here tries to phrase the issue as being totally WMC's fault. There is far more to it than he is telling. Vsmith 05:24, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] I concurr with Vsmith's statements added to date on the project page

Since I was witness and sometimes participant during the incidents covered by Vsmith in his comments on the project page, I concurr with his representations and general assessment there. I was not a witness and did not review the evidence he presented just above here on the discussion page, so my confirmation does not extend to them.--Silverback 18:08, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Vsmith's statement of 18:57, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would like to add endorse Vsmith's summary of the edit war at solar greenhouse (technical). I observed the same edit war, and had the same impression of what transpired. Guettarda 20:04, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Solar greenhouse (technical)

There is one major topic which is in dispute on the solar greenhouse page, and this is whether greenhouses work by the suppression of convection, or by thermal infrared (IR) absorption. WMC has been promoting that greenhouses work by convection suppression since long before I came here, on the greenhouse effect page, where solar greenhouse (technical) originated. A number of editors have come along and tried to change the description or say that it should be changed, as can be seen in the histories there, but never succeeded. This came to my attention when I saw a reader question the contents of that section. I have a background in thermodynamics, so I could see that the description was incorrect, and I fixed it. WMC protested, and after trying, and failing, to explain the physics to him, I eventually simply left both descriptions as a compromise. At some point, WMC came along and removed the section I had placed with the physically correct IR absorption description, leaving only the physically incorrect convection suppression section. Eventually, the dispute was moved by Vsmith to solar greenhouse (technical) in order to separate the issue. Then an edit war ensued because WMC didn't want to keep the dispute separate, but eventually he gave in after six reverts. — Cortonin | Talk 01:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Since the dispute was on a separate page, I began to describe the physics more thoroughly in order to end the matter and get the description correct. Vsmith rewrote most of the page, and I accepted most of his rewrites, except for a few phrases which stated that greenhouses operate by convection suppression, which I modifed to state that greenhouses operate by IR absorption, since this is the correct thermodynamic description. This is the only aspect still being disputed by anyone other than WMC (who keeps periodically reverting back to the description from a long time ago). Calling the operation of a greenhouse POV is about on par with saying that how a car operates is POV. There are no edit wars on automobile over whether cars operate by gasoline containment, because the scientific understanding of how automobiles operate is clear, unambiguous, and undisputed. The scientific understanding of how greenhouses operate is equally clear, unambiguous, and undisputed. The best and most detailed description I've found of how a greenhouse operates is the Joliet et al. article in the June 1991 issue of Agricultural and Forest Meteorology. No wikipedia editor has presented any source from the literature containing a detailed description of greenhouse operation which contradicts the description in that article. It is an undisputed and experimentally confirmed description. The only downside, is that it's a 30 page description with some mathematics and thermodynamics to follow in order to understand it. — Cortonin | Talk 01:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

There is one article from 1909 by a man named Wood, which contains a poorly conducted experiment lacking a correct control, in which he concludes that there is no temperature rise due to IR absorption in a greenhouse, and in which he also concludes that there is no global greenhouse effect. This experiment has been overwritten a hundred times over by more recent science and understanding, and we now know that IR absorption does increase temperatures, and that this warms the Earth and gardening greenhouses. There is one copy of the 1909 article available on WMC's personal blog, which he has been linking to as his primary source for the convection suppression theory. — Cortonin | Talk 01:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

This is not a dispute about POV, or opinion, it's simply a dispute about physics, and the published science is clear on this one. I've tried presenting more easily understandable descriptions on talk, and I've tried pointing out that there's an entire industry out there manufacturing greenhouse components using the accepted understanding that they operate by IR absorption. Please examine the science of this matter carefully before making your decisions. — Cortonin | Talk 01:50, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The removal of the three references mentioned below was not in a "guise", nor was it in any way sneaky, I had discussed it quite plainly on the talk page last week. Perhaps WMC missed it. I simply called for references to be included according to uniform standards. In response to his complaint, I have left his references and restored the four which were previously deleted [1].

[edit] re: Cortonin's "blog" above

POV or difference of interpretation. I and two or three others define the greenhouse environment starting with one of the most basic and important factors: suppression of comvection.
Cortonin and his glazing researchers (refs) start with that as a given, and proceed to investigate the agreed important factor of IR absorption.
Seems this could be reconciled and I have been working toward that (as I learn, I don't have access to his 30 page ref.) in the compromise version that Cortonin keeps basically reverting, compare this, his most recent complex revert with this, which compares his most recent with his previous revert edit.
However, what is pertinent to this discussion is that Cortonin is still engaging in a revert war and ignoring a call for a truce and the comments of other editors.
Vsmith 03:53, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:08, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Note in particular this edit [2] by Cortonin. Under the guise of Reverting undocumented points of contention. Keeping newer edits. Document properly before undoing he has removed (see the end) three perfectly valid references which disagree with (well, refute) his POV.

[edit] Addressing Vsmith's Concerns About Atlast

I know this belongs in the evidence section but I'm still trying to figure out how to add it and I wanted to address this before going to bed.

Vsmith had three basic concerns about my contributions to the GW article, none of which are relevant and all of them demonstrate he was some serious POV issues. (It's worth nothing that WMC has expressed similar concerned about me.)

-He said my contributions were undiscussed. That's true but only because he and WMC kept reverting the article. If things you don't like stay on, it's far more likely there will be discussion.

-He said my articles were controversial. That's true, too. And it's a good thing because (good) scientists ask the tough questions. Lots of scientists have proposed ideas that were once controversial (the earth revolves around the sun, the atom can be split, there's this thing called DNA that determines what an organism is, the entire discipline of quantum mechanics). Simply dismissing it as "controversial" demonstrates he's more interested in his POV than the truth and warrants the inclusion of my contributions. WMC has also dismissed new ideas as "overly skeptical," which is a vague and useless term. [3]

-He (like WMC) cites my blog when I first started working on GW. Just so we're clear, I predicted new ideas would not be welcomed, that there would be "mayhem" because I'm well aware of the politics and controversy of this topic. When people who disagree with me focus on that prediction and not civicly challenge my additions, they only prove my point. They don't care about the truth, only the perception. The "arguments" become nothing more than character attacks. If you have a problem with the evidence, do your discipline a favor and ask questions of the evidence, not the person.

--Atlastawake 06:07, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)


(William M. Connolley 09:24, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)) Good scientists do indeed ask tough questions. But they don't go around repeating tired old nonsense. I reverted your edit [4] with Rv (sorry; but 12...'s stuff was overly skeptical and wrong; see talk) to WMC + header of cons-affl to fw-skep, because (apart from other things) you added:
They argue that weathermen can't accurately predict temperatures more than a few weeks in advance but some scientists claim their computer models (predicting temperatures decades or centuries in advance) are accurate. They also point out that computer models aren't evidence because they are built on guesses and assumptions.
Believing (as AlA appears to) that the intrinsic limit of weather predictability affects the limit of climate predictability is wrong (or, if you prefer, against the weight of scientific opionion). And of course I explained all this on the talk page [5].

I included Atlastawakes's edit as an example of editors who read a Crichton novel (or the first page of it), immediately become experts on complex and controversial topics such as global warming, and procede to make substantial edits on a contrversial topic without bothering to read the comments or history to see if it's all been there before. It is just this kind of uninformed editing that WMC and the other serious editors must constantly contend with as they try to keep the climate articles focused on the science and balanced. The timing of his edit made it even worse coming just after the JonGwynne fiasco and another blogger's craziness. Also, the fact that he tried to become a member of the arbcom for the case shows a total lack of understanding or of trying to understand the wiki system. He states scientists ask the tough questions, implying that he is either a scientist and/or asking tough questions - both absurd, as his edits were the same old skeptical baggage neither new nor tough. Vsmith 18:25, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Atlastawakes example post is indeed a mixed bag. Arguing the climate is unpredictible because weather is barely predictible more than a week or two out is just wrong. Whole industries such as agriculture, construction, skiing, tourism, etc. rely on the predictibility of climate. The climate is an attractor for weather. You are more likely to have winter weather in winter, summer weather in summer, rain during the monsoon season, California weather in California, etc., etc. for Hawaii, the Pacific Northwest, the Sahara, the outback, New Zealand, the mediterranean, etc. etc. The extent of natural variability within the climate system is still a matter of research, and there is good evidence that this interglacial climate is more variable than one would conclude from just the last couple hundred years of recorded weather data. Natural climate variability of course, creates difficulties for detection of climate change.

Atlastawakes is partially correct about some scientists being concerned that the heat island effect is not properly accounted for in the data, but heat island data has been accepted as confirming trends for their particular geographical areas that are also seen is areas where the heat island effect is not as much a concern.

I would need to see some citations for what he means by explaining current warming as a residual effect of recovery from a past ice age to know what he means. I suspect there is a more long term "climate commitment" effect, but can't tell if that is what he means.

I also don't agree with his total dismissal of climate models, they are useful tools worth developing. Models implement, with considerable approximation and parameterization the current state of our understanding of the climate system, and we can learn from how poorly or well they match actual climate data. I certainly don't agree that the state of the art is far enough along, to undertake expensive measures such as Kyoto requires.--Silverback 23:55, 30 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Lots of things. First, I never claimed to be an expert. Saying that I did is slander (or libel, depending on how litteraly you take the "talk" page). Second, I've read more than MC's book, and while I'm repeating claims by formally trained scientists, I don't see how that makes them less valid. Someone has to bring the information to wiki.

Third, I may be new to wiki but I don't have a total lack of understand, as Vsmith claims. I know, for example, that revert wars are frowned upon and whenever possible compromise and discussion should be favored over censorship. Vsmith and WMC are the last people to be lecturing me on wiki etiquette and rules.

Fourth, the local/global weather analogy obviously doesn't work in the general sense (it will be cold in winter) but it does work on the specifics (it will be 0 degrees on December 5th). That's what the analogy is meant to demonstrate: climatologists think they can predict the average temperature fifty years from now while my weatherman can't predict it next month. Is it the same thing? Of course not. But they are interconnected.

Fifth, when I said good scientists ask the tough questions, I was referring the lack of tough questions on the article, which is really the core problem I have with it. The bottom line is that the arrogance in this discipline is damaging the validity of the theory of global warming.

Legions of climatologists claim with utmost surety that they know global warming is happening, the degree it’s happening and why it’s happening yet in the same breath admit there is a great deal unknown about our global climate.

The theory of global warming is some 30 years old. In that time numerous new understanding of chaos theory, non-linear dynamics and complex systems. Yet the theory (as far as its causation and warnings) remains unchanged, its critics harshly dealt with.

-The moment a theory stops challenging itself in light of new ideas is the moment it stops becoming science and starts becoming religion.

-The moment skeptics are waved off more than welcomed is the moment supporters start caring more about sounding right than being right.

-The moment belief becomes more important than humility is the moment the believers become less like scientists and more like theologians.

You don't have to be a scientist to recognize sloppy science (in fact, not having a vested interest in it helps a great deal). I've seen mistakes by so-called experts in dozens of fields (including my discipline: economics) and the politics and science of global warming fits the pattern of public choice theory. It deserves and demands to be open to a wider audience.--Atlastawake 06:43, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Your comments above make a lot of implicit assumptions which I think need further consideration:
  • Vsmith and WMC are the last people to be lecturing me on wiki etiquette and rules. - If you have some evidence of wrong doing I suggest you present it in this article for consideration rather than making allusions to some vague wrong-doing.
  • Saying that I did is slander... - Let's not get hysterical about this and start throwing about precious terms like "slander" and "libel" just because of a little criticism. It's not libel as no real harm has been done to your reputation.
  • I know, for example, that revert wars are frowned upon and whenever possible compromise and discussion should be favored over censorship. - As are controversial edits without discussion on the talk page first. As they say, it takes two to tango...
  • Fourth, the local/global weather analogy obviously doesn't work in the general sense (it will be cold in winter) but it does work on the specifics (it will be 0 degrees on December 5th). That's what the analogy is meant to demonstrate: climatologists think they can predict the average temperature fifty years from now while my weatherman can't predict it next month. - That is the point: that weather prediction is much harder than climate prediction. The thrust here is that it is impossible to predict the temperature on Christmas day (i.e. the weather) 50 years in the future, but it is far more possible to predict the average temperature in 50 years (i.e. the climate). In other words, climate and weather are two different things and you do your argument no favors by confusing them.
  • In that time numerous new understanding of chaos theory, non-linear dynamics and complex systems. - This assumes that a) chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, and other faddish terms have something to do with climatology and b) that modern climatology is uninformed by modern scientific thinking.
  • The moment skeptics are waved off more than welcomed is the moment supporters start caring more about sounding right than being right. - I don't think global warming has ever suffered for a shortage of critics and skeptics. Again, this all presumes that the skeptics are fighting their corner from some sort of underdog position which seems ludicrous when you consider some of the big names and dollars supporting the anti-GW lobby.
  • The moment belief becomes more important than humility is the moment the believers become less like scientists and more like theologians. - This presumes that climatologists are "believers" rather than scientists convinced by the evidence before them.
  • You don't have to be a scientist to recognize sloppy science... - In the case of an issue as complex and detailed as climatology, I think you do actually have to have a certain degree of knowledge to interpret the data fully and recognise flaws. All your comments so far lead me to believe that you lack even a basic understanding of how science works.
  • (in fact, not having a vested interest in it helps a great deal). - I think having an interest in a field of study actually does help a great deal, especially when it comes to science. You wouldn't, for example, accept the medical diagnosis of an unqualified stranger over your MD.
  • I've seen mistakes by so-called experts in dozens of fields... - I think someone throwing accusations of arrogance at others would think twice about writing something like this.
  • It deserves and demands to be open to a wider audience. - That rather depends on what you are talking about here. The discussion on what to do about climate change does belong to a wider audience - it's a strawman to imply that the GW-lobby are trying to somehow stiffle discourse. The debate over the scientific evidence, which is where most attacks against global warming are aimed, also belongs to the public to a degree but only so long as it is informed by the knowledge and opinion of those best qualified to understand it. What you are saying here is that the best people to interpret the evidence are the people who are least qualified, non-climatologists! --Axon 15:30, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I appreciate your interpretation of my concerns, but you also make some implicit claims that need to be addressed as well as questions that need to be answered.

  • If you have some evidence of wrong doing I suggest you present it in this article for consideration rather than making allusions to some vague wrong-doing. Okay. Since this dispute is about WMC, let's focus on that for now. We all know that he has constantly reverted pages (that's one of the main reasons we are all here). We also know that WMC doesn't like to discuss on the talk page as he often simply dismisses arguements as "wrong" or "overly skeptical" without explanation. [6] He even does it even when some one tries to add a POV tag. [7]
  • Let's not get hysterical about this and start throwing about precious terms like "slander" and "libel" just because of a little criticism. Normally I'd agree with you but this is a common problem that needs to be called what it's called so we can recognize it for what it is. Vsmith's accusation that's I'm masquerading as an expert contains negative connotations that simply aren't true.
  • [c]ontroversial edits without discussion [are frowned upon.] Read WMC first posting here: [8]. Edits are good, but they need to be discussed (the wording suggests edits should be done first). I'm down with that, but I'm getting very little of the discussion part.
  • That is the point: that weather prediction is much harder than climate prediction. Yes and no. On one hand you could say that the changes over a larger system average out so prediction is easier. On the other hand you can say they complicate each other, so it's actually harder. Because scientists don't have a climate they can perform objective controlled expirements on, no one can demonstrate absolutely which is more appropriate. But weather and climate prediction are inherently linked.
  • This assumes that a) chaos theory, non-linear dynamics, and other faddish terms have something to do with climatology and b) that modern climatology is uninformed by modern scientific thinking. Calling chaos theory (aka non-linear dynamics) a fad is not true. It is derived scientificly from the fields of mathematics and physics and can trace its history to the early 1900s. Because it is used to describe large complex systems, it is certainly appropriate for climate models. Because its inclusion would have fundamentally changed conlcusions about global warming, we know it has not been included.
  • I don't think global warming has ever suffered for a shortage of critics and skeptics. Again, this all presumes that the skeptics are fighting their corner from some sort of underdog position which seems ludicrous when you consider some of the big names and dollars supporting the anti-GW lobby. We rarely--if ever--see critics of global warming in the media and most people believe it's happening [9]. Saying that the anti-GW position has all the money is simplistic (especially since rhetoric is arguably more important than money). For example, one would point out that the oil industry "has all the money" but that's immaterial as most of their money goes to running a business. The pro-GW lobby has a much smaller overhead and still makes millions of dollars a year. Again, considering the public perception, yes there are a shortage of critics and skeptics and yes, they are in the underdog position.
  • This presumes that climatologists are "believers" rather than scientists convinced by the evidence before them. A believer is somone who accepts something as true or real. That belief can be rooted in science or it can stem from something else.
  • In the case of an issue as complex and detailed as climatology, I think you do actually have to have a certain degree of knowledge to interpret the data fully and recognise flaws. It certainly helps, there's no doubt about it. But there are basic scientific principles (scientific method, controlled expirements) that climatologists simply don't or can't use.
  • All your comments so far lead me to believe that you lack even a basic understanding of how science works. I'm sorry you feel that way, but it's not true. Please refrain from character attacks; that is not how you build a community (esp a wiki one).
  • I think having an interest in a field of study actually does help a great deal, especially when it comes to science. Of course it does. Having a vested interest generates passion and dedication that allows one to better understand the subject at hand. It unfortunately can also act as an incentive to ignore data or ideas that contridict one's life work. Thus we understand the role of someone without a vested interest for they will have the incentive to ask questions others are unwilling or unable to ask.
  • I've seen mistakes by so-called experts in dozens of fields... - I think someone throwing accusations of arrogance at others would think twice about writing something like this. I do not see why. Experts make mistakes and history is riddled with them. (Right now I'm thinking of Robert Parks' Voodoo Science.) I've read about mistakes and I've seen them in the news (especially ones that are statisical and economic in nature). These are all claims made by experts in their fields. (Now if you want to claim that experts are inhuman and thus incapable of making mistakes, that's your take, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find people that agree with you.)
  • What you are saying here is that the best people to interpret the evidence are the people who are least qualified, non-climatologists! No, I don't. You misunderstand. Cclimotologists may be in the best position to understand the climate, but they are prone to mistakes and poorly conceived conclusions influenced by their own vested interest (as everyone is). Many non-climatologists have valid questions to ask. Insisting they don't "get" to ask them does a disservice to the scientific method.

[edit] Addressing Atlast's reply to Axon's comments on Vsmith's Concerns About Atlast

When making bold assertions like you did, you should really make sure that it woudl take more than 5 minutes search to show that you don't know what you are talking about. Atlastawake said

Because it is used to describe large complex systems, it is certainly appropriate for climate models. Because its inclusion would have fundamentally changed conlcusions about global warming, we know it has not been included.

A quick search of "GCM", "chaos" and "climate" turned up this...which, at a glance seems to suggest that chaos (and fractals) are used in climate modelling. I may be wrong (this is not my speciality...the closest I have come to GW thus far is a couple warming experiments), but it looks to me like this abstract contradicts Atlast [10]

Title: Multifractal analysis of a GCM climate
Authors: Carl, P.
Journal: EGS - AGU - EUG Joint Assembly, Abstracts from the meeting held in Nice, France, 6 - 11 April 2003, abstract #12275
Publication Date: 04/2003
Origin: EGU
Bibliographic Code: 2003EAEJA....12275C
Abstract
Multifractal analysis using the Wavelet Transform Modulus Maxima (WTMM) approach is being applied to the climate of a Mintz--Arakawa type, coarse resolution, two--layer AGCM. The model shows a backwards running period multiplication scenario throughout the northern summer, subsequent to a 'hard', subcritical Hopf bifurcation late in spring. This 'route out of chaos' (seen in cross sections of a toroidal phase space structure) is born in the planetary monsoon system which inflates the seasonal 'cycle' into these higher order structures and is blamed for the pronounced intraseasonal--to--centennial model climate variability. Previous analyses of the latter using advanced modal decompositions showed regularity based patterns in the time--frequency plane which are qualitatively similar to those obtained from the real world. The closer look here at the singularity structures, as a fundamental diagnostic supplement, aims at both more complete understanding (and quantification) of the model's qualitative dynamics and search for further tools of model intercomparison and verification in this respect. Analysing wavelet is the 10th derivative of the Gaussian which might suffice to suppress regular patterns in the data. Intraseasonal attractors, studied in time series of model precipitation over Central India, show shifting and broadening singularity spectra towards both more violent extreme events (premonsoon--monsoon transition) and weaker events (late summer to postmonsoon transition). Hints at a fractal basin boundary are found close to transition from period--2 to period--1 in the monsoon activity cycle. Interannual analyses are provided for runs with varied solar constants. To address the (in--)stationarity issue, first results are presented with a windowed multifractal analysis of longer--term runs ("singularity spectrogram").

Now, quite frankly, when someone makes a statement that is this easy to verify, I would probably simply describe it as "wrong"...and probably end up with an RfAr against me? Guettarda 23:16, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The content of my claim referred to the scientific community in general (and the GW movement itself). Obviously there are scores of scientists that use the theory and publish articles based on it. But the key is that it's not part of the general concern. I don't want to get to much into this as neither of us are qualified to discuss chaos theory. However, it's safe to say that it's so fundamental for understanding the atmosphere, it's wide-spread inclusion would change past and current conclusions.
Some things to consider: (A) Applying chaos theory to match its role in comprehending the atmosphere requires a complete (or near complete) understanding of the atmosphere itself. This is something we simply do not have. (B) One of the big questions surrounding chaos theory's application to GW models is if predicting the weather decades--sometimes centuries--in the future is even possible. Even if we had all this information about our climate, the system might be, well, too chaotic. [11] --Atlastawake 01:15, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] On Evidence presented by Guettarda

  • Cortonin and Scot E. Wilcoxon seem to take issue particularly with WMC's dismissal of people like Michael Crichton, Bjorn Lomborg, Nils-Axel Morner, the SEPP, S. Fred Singer and Frederick Seitz. More importantly, the words defamatory and disrespect. His criticism of Mörner in particular was called ad hominem.
    • I believe I did not comment on all those people. I commented on WMC's attacks on Mörner rather than WMC improving the description of IPCC's work on sea levels. Later I commented on WMC's insistence on his POV in the SEPP article. I believe ad hominem is the proper terminology for the behavior of attacking an individual rather than dealing with the person's subject matter. I generally ignored being defamatory and disrespectful of editors and have focused on examples of his pushing POV over factual information which seems much more specific than a "punctuated equilibrium" question … and someone bringing "punctuated equilibrium" into a relevant article often is a hint that results of those "debates of the 80s" are not present where they should be. (SEWilco 07:49, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Re: On Evidence presented by Guettarda

Ok, the comment I ended up making did not quite match the one that I started out to make. In light of the fact that it ended up a comment applicable to Lomborg & Crichton, not Morner, I have modified my statement slightly. Guettarda 13:08, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Ed Poor's evidence

I am flabbergasted. Speechless. Ed wrote:

Nearly everything about global warming is controversial and hotly disputed (no pun intended, even though I'm smiling as I write this!):
* the extent to which there exists a scientific consensus about the recent warming period and / or what's causing it
* what degree of warming occurred during the Medieval Warm Period (which put the "green" in Greenland), and how extensive it was
* whether sea level rise is related to global warming
* whether global warming would cause more intense or more frequent hurricanes

Sure. Everything that might cost industry in the short term is disputed. And if you go back 20 years you could replace "climate change" with "acid rain" or "ozone depletion". Or, you could look at the so-called "problems" that creationists raise about evolution. Nothing in science is final. All theories are eventually replaced by superior theories. Playing devil's advocate is rewarding and rewarded.

NPOV is not a policy for political advocacy. Just because people choose to perpetuate a fiction based on their own political and financial interests does not mean that the fiction should find its way into the article. The current attack on science perpetrated by the right wing is disgusting. That someone should be threatened with a ban or parole because he simply continues to push for accuracy in an article horrifies me. Guettarda 21:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I, too, am quite flabergasted and disgusted with the rant presented by Ed Poor against WMC. I see no real evidence presented, just a rambling throw my weight around blather. Looks to me like Ed was never able to push his strong POV past WMC's stewardship and insistence on relevant science AND balance. Is Ed just giving a peevish my turn to get even sermon?
And the harsh measures he proposes against his friendly opponent are quite absurd. It would appear that Ed wishes to eliminate or stifle any real scientific expertise on Wikipedia such as that of WMC simply because of his science background - drive the scientists off of Wikipedia and let those Michael Crichton experts have their way. Just because more people read and are familiar with MC's novel and thus the POV behind it than read real scientific reports and evidence does not mean that the MC crowd should have equal time in a scientific article on Wiki. No, Ed's evidence is not evidence at all, just a rant for the stick your head in the sand gang. Vsmith 00:03, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Climate modeling is not string theory or quantum mechanics, any scientifically literate person can read the journal articles and assess the evidence, and Crichton adds to that a notability, due to the fact he has spoken out against the politicization of this and other issues. If you've seen any of his talks on his book tour for his latest work of fiction, they are non-fiction talks referencing the literature, and discussing it intelligably. Ed's proposal was over the top. But there is legit scientific controversy on this issue. Before you dismiss Singer for instance, as WMC does, perhaps you should read the journal articles he co-authored last year. Links to them are in my response to Baas on the talk page.--Silverback 00:22, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)
and Crichton adds to that a notability, hmm... notability or notoriety? Crichton writes a good story, but it's not science! Crichton's non-fiction talks were not for science either, they were designed to sell books $$$ by hyping and further politicizing the controversy. And just today there was another of his instant climate experts at work on global warming [12] and the nonsense was quickly reverted. Guess by who and for why? Vsmith 02:37, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I'd say Crichton's motivation is the reverse of what you imply, he wrote the book to give himself a platform to make the points he feels strongly about. You might want to catch one of his talks which will probably get repeated on BookTV.--Silverback 04:19, Apr 7, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reply to Guettarda

(from above) NPOV is not a policy for political advocacy. Just because people choose to perpetuate a fiction based on their own political and financial interests does not mean that the fiction should find its way into the article. The current attack on science perpetrated by the right wing is disgusting. --Guettarda

I began early with the comment that I hoped we could keep the comments related to evidence, and not be sidetracked into a discussion about politics or global warming. Comments like the above serve only as distractions, since they are gross mischaracterizations of the issue. I am quite pro-science, and I'm about as far from right wing as you could get. Including careful NPOV from a variety of perspectives in climate related articles is not "political advocacy", it's simply Wikipedia policy. This RfA is not about politics, and not about deciding which scientific views are more true. Ed Poor's comments highlight the central issues, which are that WMC is forcing a singular viewpoint into dominance to the exclusion of other viewpoints by aggressive revert warring. I hope the arbcom can find a suitable solution to this problem. — Cortonin | Talk 00:37, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

No, Ed brought politics into it. His vitriolic attack was totally out of place and nothing to do with the evidence, merely an bully's PoV-pushing. He chose to disregard turn NPOV on its head and lauch into a carefully crafted personal attack...carefully crafted to maintain plausible deniability.
You can skirt the thin line between advocacy and NPOV - in fact you do it very well. Ed did not - he bulldozed right past it and joined in on an attack of science which is currently emanating from parts of the right wing. I am not trying to tar everyone on the right with the same brush. I always thought of Ed as a person who could see beyond narrow personal bias and work for NPOV. My visceral reaction to his comments has as much to do with having my illusions shattered as anything. But it remains the case that he was the one who replaced a presentation of evidence with a rant of political POV. I thought better of him. Guettarda 01:06, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cortonin's Addendum 4

In the current phase of edit warring it seems that Cortonin keeps better track of time - his 4th revert missed a 3rr vio. by about 36 minutes [13], this following his report of WMC's timekeeping error on 3rr. Hmm...- following the letter of the law. Vsmith 20:45, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • "Correlation is not causation". I read that somewhere. I think if I had written it there would be more alliteration. And was the "This is an Evil Edit" checkbox marked on that? (SEWilco 03:33, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Credit for time served

Unfortunately WMC unjustly sufferred a 48 hour block, that should have been only 24 hours. I note this for the arbitration committee's consideration.--Silverback 14:49, Apr 12, 2005 (UTC)

Does that mean he's got a free pass for another 3RR violation? :) Guettarda 14:58, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
According to the block log, the duration of the time was correct at 24 hours. Perhaps it was simply a browser cache issue. It could not have been a 48 hour block, because his first edit, another revert, was 39.8 hours after being blocked. — Cortonin | Talk 17:37, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:35, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)) It wasn't a browser issue. Whatever it was, though, its past; I'm not asking for any credit for it, of course.

[edit] Evidence by Consensus

Are we supposed to state if we agree or disagree with all evidence, or is it sufficient for truth to be spoken by one person? Does more people agreeing make something more true? (SEWilco 19:00, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Jungle

This thing reads like a jungle. Its a debate more than a compilation of evidence. Hedley 19:24, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Wonderful old Uncle Ed

Well, either I'm a great exponent of NPOV and a talented mediator and all-around nice guy -- who has a blind spot when it comes to global warming, etc. -- or I'm great, etc. and have no blind spot. (Being a computer programmer helps with this sort of logic. :-)

And if I have a blind spot, then by definition I can't see it and wouldn't even know I had it. One of my all-time favorite guys in this community is maveric149: he KNOWS he can't write neutrally about homosexuality or related topics, so he stays away from those articles. I really respect that. And maybe I need to do the same thing with the climate articles. If you look at my "user contributions", you'll see very few edits to any of the controversial science articles. I've pretty much abandoned the field to Dr. C.

Part of this yielding is due to my personal reluctance to see a bona fide scientist leave Wikipedia. I'd rather have William here (even with the way things are now) than have him leave - either in a huff, or via a ban. Wikipedia needs real, credentialed scientists (*I* think).

I did not start the RFA. I have not amassed "evidence" to support it. This is a conscious choice, and I have my reasons. If this means that the RFA fails due to "lack of evidence", that's okay with me. William is not on trial, and he shouldn't be. This is a disagreement between friends (even colleagues, maybe).

I think NPOV means fairly describing all important points of view in a controversy. Not everyone thinks that's what Wikipedia policy is or even should be. Even those who agree can differ sharply on how to put that policy into effect. For one thing, there is no hard and fast rule on what percentage of article text must be devoted to competing POVs. If advocacy for X and Y runs 80/20, it still might require 50/50 coverage just to outline all the arguments. And if people are split 50/50 on an issue (like the recent US election), that by no means requires the articles on Bush and Kerry to devote just as much space to the POVs of Bushies and Kerryites.

As I said previously, I might have a blind spot. But it also might be true that certain people have "chosen to perpetuate a fiction based on their own political and financial interests" by using the GW theory to promote the Kyoto Protocol's emission trading proposals. Hundreds of billions of dollars may be changing hands, with trillion-dollar effects on major world economies. (And billions of dollars per year have been devoted to pro-GW-theory research, in comparison to which anti-GW-theory research gets a drop in the bucket.) If it's true that money causes people to turn a blind eye or a deaf ear to concerns for the truth, then, well ...?

Anyway, I've said enough on this issue. I'm taking the rest of this month off from it. Best wishes to all, and may NPOV prevail. -- Uncle Ed (talk) 20:30, Apr 13, 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response clarifying my understanding of NPOV.

WMC requested that I clarify my understanding of NPOV here. He stated:

But also, my reading of the NPOV policy is that if 90% of the scientists agree on something (however one might determine that I'm unsure) then the article should give, very roughly, space in the article proportional to this balance of views. On this kind of balance I argue that the GW articles currently overweight the skeptics opinion. -- WMC

This would perhaps be an expression of the so called "scientific point of view", where Wikipedia would simply report the majority beliefs of scientists in a particular field at any particular time. This is, however, not the policy of Wikipedia, and the NPOV page explicitely says that it is not. Instead, the NPOV page states:

First, and most importantly, consider what it means to say that unbiased writing presents conflicting views without asserting them. Unbiased writing does not present only the most popular view; it does not assert the most popular view is correct after presenting all views; it does not assert that some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Presenting all points of view says, more or less, that p-ists believe that p, and q-ists believe that q, and that's where the debate stands at present. Ideally, presenting all points of view also gives a great deal of background on who believes that p and q and why, and which view is more popular (being careful not to associate popularity with correctness). Detailed articles might also contain the mutual evaluations of the p-ists and the q-ists, allowing each side to give its "best shot" at the other, but studiously refraining from saying who won the exchange.

I have tried my best to get the climate articles to conform to this policy, and I have been met with great resistance, which continues with aggressive persistence. For example, consider this edit. WMC is trying to categorize the groups of people on opposite sides of the global warming debate as either "accepting the scientific evidence" or "denying the scientific evidence". To categorize people in this manner blatantly endorses one side as correct, in direct violation of NPOV, as I explained on the talk page prior to his last revert. This form of pushed POV endorsement has to stop. Either we change Wikipedia policy to be pro-environmentalist rather than neutral, or some action has to be taken to get WMC to stop making it such. — Cortonin | Talk 21:08, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Cortonin's example of NPOV

Cortonin has chosen a rather odd example for his efforts to conform to NPOV. Global warming controversy is an article about a scientific subject that is considered controversial. The most basic part of any science article or topic is the evidence. Now the article breaks the dispute into four points of view based on the evidence. Three points of view differ by interpretation of the meaning of the evidence, where the fourth simply rejects the evidence. Cortonin feels that the use of rhe word evidence in this case is somehow POV and would change it to a supposedly neutral - think that ... The basis of the article is the interpretation of the evidence, so how is his change NPOV? His and others edits are basically designed to weaken the article and thereby push their skeptic POV by making the debate appear to be about beliefs or thoughts rather than scientific evidence. Cortonin tries to hide behind the NPOV policy while he and his allies push their skeptic POV in their edits by hiding the evidence and attempting to weaken the science by the use of often absurd qualifiers.

Cortonin scoffs at what he refers to as the so called "scientific point of view", where Wikipedia would simply report the majority beliefs of scientists. Now, just how is a science article in an encyclopedia supposed to be written if not based on the theories and evidence for them first from the viewpoint of science. Again the importance is on the theories and evidence, not the beliefs of scientists. If there are differences of interpretation among scientists, these differences or disputes should be reported also, and this is the tricky part - deciding the amount and detail of dispute coverage. This is where a level of scientific consensus must be considered. Then, beyond that, if there are political, economic, philosophical, religious, or other disputes regarding the science they should be discussed either as sections within the article or in separate linked articles. The science of the article should not be qualified or belittled just because someone disagrees or has read some popular but misleading account. It should be pointed out that this current flap was initiated by User:JonGwynne who has been recently reprimanded by arbcom for POV pushing and Cortonin is in this case supporting the recently rebuffed POV edits of JonGwynn.

Further, in the current edit wars regarding greenhouse function in Solar greenhouse (technical) and Greenhouse effect Cortonin insists on pushing his personal interpretation of getting the physics right and essentially refuses to meet any efforts at compromise. It's not about whether his interpretation is right, it's more about recognizing that it isn't the only right, that other interpretations can also be right. His position here is quite at odds with his NPOV statements above. See the edit histories and talk pages on the above articles. -Vsmith 01:21, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] GW Controversy NPOV

Consider my recent changes to that same Global warming controversy. The beginning is not about evidence, it is about beliefs in several concepts by individuals. My most recent change was more basic, as I realized the first issue was simply whether climate changed...and climate often changes in various ways. The real issue in that sentence was in the wording "by how much", which actually does not mean 1 degree but rather it means "more than it usually changes". Is there POV in asking "does climate change" or "does it change more than usual"? (SEWilco 05:41, 16 Apr 2005 (UTC))

[edit] Re: Vsmith's response above

It is not my choice to not follow the "scientific point of view", it is simply Wikipedia policy to follow the neutral point of view instead of the scientific point of view, which specifically means not endorsing one group's view as correct. This is particularly important when describing a controversy between different groups, such as global warming controversy does. Endorsing one group as "accepting the scientific evidence" and another group as "denying the scientific evidence" is specifically saying that what one group thinks is true, and the other group is just in denial. And even if a particular editor thinks this is the case, it still violates NPOV. — Cortonin | Talk 04:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The edit I proposed there was not initiated by JonGwynne. It was simply a previous edit of his which drew my attention to that section of the article. JonGwynne does a good job of noticing areas of articles that are explicitely endorsing an environmentalist POV, he just doesn't present the best NPOV solutions to the problem. But it's perfectly reasonable to examine the areas he highlights and look for a more neutral way to word those sections, and this is what I have done. — Cortonin | Talk 04:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the mechanism of gardening greenhouses, this does not describe a dispute between groups, but simply a physical mechanism. So yes, it is reasonable to get the physics right in the description of a well-understood physical mechanism. Are you proposing the physics should be described wrongly? The NPOV policy does not suggest this. — Cortonin | Talk 04:15, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to WMC's comments about the 400kyr graph.

WMC said I "couldn't resist jumping on the bandwagon", and mentioned an edit I made. It is here, and the reason given was "We should use both. It puts the zoomed in graph in a larger context, which is critical for understanding." I think that pretty much covers it. More information is better, more depth is better, more perspectives are better. Exclusivity and tailoring the information to present a narrow view, that's not so good. — Cortonin | Talk 21:42, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The context is already in the article with the 2000yr plot just two sections down [14]. This makes the new graph redundant and unneeded. This incident shows dramatically the POV pushing style of Cortonin, he immediately rushes to welcome and support any skeptic who has read MC's novel and drops by with some edit designed either to confuse or belittle the climate articles. Vsmith 23:39, 21 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] A Lot of Stotts

There are apparently two prominent P.A. Stotts. I thought the IPCC article was discussing the Peter Stott,

(William M. Connolley 21:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Really? What an odd thing to think, given that the section in question begins Emeritus professor of biogeography Philip Stott points out in.... It could not be more clear that its Philip not Peter.

the one who has published heavily regarding climate change and was cited by the IPCC. Apparently it was discussing Philip Stott, who is much less related, and doesn't mention Peter Stott. The literature I was sufficiently familiar with. The "Philip", I was not. This is a perfect example of why it is useful to coordinate on the discussion page. The entry was reverted FIVE times without a single person responding to the discussion on the talk page on this topic. The process breaks when people focus on fighting the revert war and neglect to respond to the talk page. — Cortonin | Talk 20:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And regardless of which Stott this is, I think it would be useful if the arbcom could make some statement about Wikipedia calling people objectively "dubious". This strikes me as a direct violation of the "What is NPOV" section of the NPOV policy. — Cortonin | Talk 20:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Regarding the temperature change, it seems WMC has difficulty telling the difference between "Europe" and "Earth". I already explained on the talk page and in edit summaries the reason I removed that section, which is that Stott is saying Europe was 2 degrees hotter during the Medieval Warm Period, in which the average global temperature was up, but even moreso in Europe than the rest of the world. WMC is trying to ridicule Stott for this by saying that the average global temperature was not as hot as Stott states the European one was. This does not make sense, since Europe does not equal the Earth. — Cortonin | Talk 20:43, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 21:04, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)) Well, we're both 1/2 wrong, since those are almost all northern hemisphere only, not global. Perhaps you can find one that does support his statement?
The absence of good global temperature measurements is another topic altogether. Most simply though, Europe does not equal the Northern Hemisphere either. I thought the Medieval Warm Period in Europe was pretty general knowledge, but here's one of the first links google gave me on it [15], and if you want more detail, follow the references in Hass HC, "Northern Europe climate variations during late Holocene", Palaeogeography Palaeoclimatology Palaeoecology 123(1-4), Jul 1996. There's plenty more in the literature on it, but that's a start. — Cortonin | Talk 02:41, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Apology for comment on evidence page.

My apology for commenting on the evidence page rather than here with this comment: [16]. I will try to remember in the future. Seems there's been a rash of this "forgetfulness" there :-). Vsmith 16:28, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Frankfurt reference

I apologize if WMC found said comment offensive. I suspect he found it more opportune than offensive, but regardless, I apologize anyway if any offense was taken. As said before, it was intended in the context of H.G. Frankfurt's philosophical essay titled, "On Bullshit", where the term is used to indicate a disregard for whether or not something is true (where in fact, it can even actually be true), as differentiated from lying, where something is known to be false. I now see that the others here are unfamiliar with this context, and have interpreted it in an older vulgar context, so I have removed it. — Cortonin | Talk 19:09, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to WMC's lack of revert explanation defense.

First, let me just get it out of the way in saying that I am not JonGwynne's "brother", nor do I know anything about the guy outside of the edits he's made on similar articles. I didn't make a single post on his RFA because I didn't have anything to say about it, nor did I have any evidence to bring to it. If WMC's best defense for not explaining his reverts is that JonGwynne does it to, then perhaps he should be subject to the same editing conditions as JonGwynne. WMC's contributions would be much more productive if they came in the form of edits instead of reverts. — Cortonin | Talk 00:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's no easy explanation regarding the Horticern paper. I pointed out exactly where it contains what WMC said it doesn't contain, I pointed out that the model includes convection and infiltration and matches experiment, and I pointed out that WMC's edits contradict this. But I'm afraid you can't know that for sure without reading the paper yourself. In comparison, it's fairly straightforward to follow the explanation of how his repeated revert violates basic logic, which WMC neglected to respond to at any time, including his post here. Refusing to address elementary logic errors, while continuing to revert, is quite unproductive. — Cortonin | Talk 00:26, 8 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 20:08, 9 May 2005 (UTC)) Well, as I said, Cortonin is happy to talk round and round in circles. He misrepresents my defense, of course, which was that when we're in a long revert war a detailed summary each time is a sign of trying to deceive onlookers, not of good faith as he is trying to suggest. Regarding Horticern... round we go again... Cortonin pushes his personal research again and again and convinces no-one.
I do not follow how claiming that the article should reflect the description of the gardening greenhouse mechanism in the peer reviewed literature is "personal research", while claiming that how a greenhouse works is obvious by watching what happens while opening a window is "sticking with the literature". — Cortonin | Talk 05:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 19:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)) Sadly, this is all too true: you really don't understand. Let me go round the circle for you one more tedious time: Horticern makes no direct statements at all on the question "is the greenhouse effect a misnomer?". The paper is in fact irrelevant to the issue at hand; your personal research has come in by attempting to wrench bits of the paper into saying what you believe. On the other hand, what I am saying is directly supported by the published literature [17], [18] (around refs 10-11 in the text) and various websites, e.g. [19]. All this is listed in my version.
The question is not "is the greenhouse effect a misnomer",
(William M. Connolley 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) To the contrary, that is precisely the question, although you'd rather not see it as such because then the answer is rather too obviously that you're wrong.
I don't care if it's called a "misnomer", as long as the REASON for calling it a misnomer matches the description of the greenhouse effect in the literature. If you so choose, you can call the greenhouse effect a misnomer because the global greenhouse has reduced infrared heating due to convection around the IR barrier. This fits the mechanism in the literature. But to say the greenhouse effect is a "misnomer" because gardening greenhouses don't heat up by thermal IR absorbent glazing, now that contradicts the peer reviewed literature. In specific, the Horticern paper clearly describes the central relevance of the thermal IR absorbence to the function of the greenhouse, and its strong dependence on the radiative sky temperature. — Cortonin | Talk 19:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) The horticern paper does no such thing.
Let me quote:
For a precise evaluation of the thermal needs, it is necessary to take into account the combined effect of wind and radiative losses to the sky. The new theory developed brings a new understanding of sky temperature influence and measurements at CERN confirm its validity. ... the specific loss coefficient will depend on the apparent sky temperature (theta_sky) and the windspeed (v). ... Sky temperature influence is characterized by this ratio q_sky = ((theta_out-theta_sky)/(theta_in-theta_out)), which amounts on average to 1.3 for a greenhouse heated at 15C at night and 18C during the day in Geneva. It varies between 0 and 3 during the main heating period, but it reaches much higher values when inside temperature is close to outside temperature.
In other words, when the temperatures inside and outside the greenhouse start out the same, the influence of the sky temperature overwhelmingly dominates over any convective effects, air infiltration effects, or wind effects, and so the initial forcing which causes a greenhouse to differ from its surrounding environment is the shielding of radiative coupling to the upper sky. The literature is clear on this point. — Cortonin | Talk 19:29, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
the question is, "how does a greenhouse function, and how can we best describe it?" The Horticern paper is recent, peer-reviewed, and thoroughly addresses that last question in great detail and with experimentally confirmed accuracy. Trying to counter that with a discarded six paragraph essay from 1909 and two websites which refer to that essay is not "the literature". — Cortonin | Talk 03:10, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 17:42, 11 May 2005 (UTC)) Here we see Cortonins contempt for literature that he doesn't like. The paper isn't "discarded" - its as valid now as when written. Horticern, of course, is perfectly valid peer-reviewed and recent: but irrelevant.
The Wood essay says, and I quote, "It seems to me very doubtful if the atmosphere is warmed to any great extent by absorbing the radiation from the ground, even under the most favourable conditions." In other words, the Wood essay says there is no global greenhouse effect. This paper has been discarded long ago, because we know these things to be wrong thanks to much better experiments since then which do a much better job of adhering to the scientific method. We now know that if that six paragraph essay were right, we would all freeze to death. If you hold on to that paper as "as valid now as when written", then you have to give up on the global greenhouse effect. — Cortonin | Talk 19:18, 11 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 16:24, 12 May 2005 (UTC)) The Wood essay is here [20]. What you are failing to note is that your quote above is not experimentally based, unlike the rest of the paper. The experiments he did remain as valid as ever: his personal speculation, however, was wrong.
His result that the temperature of a greenhouse with two glass plates remains almost the same as a greenhouse with one glass plate and one rock salt plate does not contradict the literature, and simply shows that two glass plates don't work much better than one (as expected by saturation). However, his results also show however that there's something a little funny with his setup because when he changes setups by throwing in the second glass plate, the temperature of the whole system drops 10C, when every piece of modern literature, and common everyday experience, shows that a greenhouse in a greenhouse causes the temperature of the inner greenhouse to RISE, not drop. (Did he run both sets of experiments at the same time of day? Did he run them even for an entire day? Under the same weather? For multiple days? No details exist, and Wood is long gone.) Gardeners add additional sheeting over plants in a greenhouse to raise the temperature, not to lower it. So when Wood says, "I do not pretent to have gone very deeply into the matter", I trust him on that, and I turn to the more recent literature which explains the mechanism of greenhouse operation in more mathematical detail and with more thorough experimentation. — Cortonin | Talk 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
I think in some sense you fail to realize how old 1909 is in that field. Planck's law of black body radiation, which is critical to understanding the greenhouse, was only written down in 1901 in terms of oscillators, and the correct theoretical explanation only given in 1924. Caratheodory only wrote down his explanation of thermodynamics with the modern definition of temperature in 1909 [21], and it was years before physicists took note of this and realized it could be as important as quantum mechanics. — Cortonin | Talk 19:09, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
The point also stands, that when you give up on thinking through and presenting reasons for your edits, then you do give up on coming to a consensus. There are good reasons why we have rules like that here. — Cortonin | Talk 05:46, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 19:43, 10 May 2005 (UTC)) We've said everything. We're not talking to each other here, either - you will once again ignore all my points. We're talking to the arbitrators and those watching.

[edit] Why smart people defend bad ideas

With so many things being labeled "obvious" here with so little justification given, or defended with gusto, fiat, verbosity, or ad hominem rather than justified argument by sourced content, I think everyone involved in this dispute should read Why smart people defend bad ideas. — Cortonin | Talk 10:22, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 11:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) Sigh. A little self-reflection would serve you well here.
As I regularly do. Do you? — Cortonin | Talk 18:13, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 18:30, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) Evidence for it is lacking. Since we're sharing our favourite books, I recommend to you (and others) Galileo: "Dialogue concenrning the two chief world systems". There are interesting parallels.
Yeah, a key aspect of that debate was that there were a bunch of people arguing that the obviousness of everyday intuition trumped the complex reasoning of modern scientific thought *cough* greenhouses *cough*. — Cortonin | Talk 19:11, 29 May 2005 (UTC)
(William M. Connolley 20:09, 29 May 2005 (UTC)) Perhaps you ought to try reading it instead of coughing so much.


Thanks Cortonin, I'm glad I read that article. Now if only some other people here would read it and, more importantly, consider whether or not the article is describing them. I saw clear descriptions of several folks here and am reasonably sure that they would deny this to their graves. One of the most important things I learned when I was growing up was that it is OK to admit when we're wrong about something - a lesson that WMC would do well to learn for himself one of these days. --JonGwynne 03:35, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Sheldon

My central premise is that if you want to understand a physical system, you need a detailed physical model, with equations describing its behavior, and which has been experimentally tested. And if you want to make sure it's at least of basic quality, it should be peer reviewed. You present a large number of commentaries which disagree with edits I have made, and zero peer-reviewed papers containing experimentally confirmed detailed models. That the lot of everyone here prefers to go with commentaries without detail over the work of people who bother to do crazy things like, say, take out an infrared thermometer and make a measurement, is frankly sad. — Cortonin | Talk 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

In contradiction to what you said, the Horticern paper describes a complete thermodynamic model for greenhouse function. If you read the paper, and not just the abstract, you will see this. — Cortonin | Talk 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I dismissed the (non peer reviewed) paper you cited because it used an entirely wrong region of the infrared absorbence spectrum of the glazing, with wavelengths off by a factor of about 10, to try to disprove the infrared greenhouse effect. A peer review process would likely have caught such a blatant error. — Cortonin | Talk 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Incompetence is in great supply in the world, but being in the minority does not make one incompetent. Ignoring experimental evidence in favor of preferred intuition does, however. — Cortonin | Talk 01:24, 2 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/e/q/Wikipedia_talk%7ERequests_for_arbitration_Climate_change_dispute_Evidence_e09b.html"