User talk:RonCram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Welcome!

Hello, RonCram, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are a few good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question, ask me on my talk page, or place {{helpme}} on your talk page and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Again, welcome! 

Contents

[edit] Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda - name change vote

Hello, there is a proposal to rename Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda to Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda conspiracy theory. The voting is here: Talk:Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda#poll on changing the name of this_page. I would appreciate it if you could vote. Thanks. ObsidianOrder 05:11, 26 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

Please see Wikipedia:Three-revert rule. Disputes over content should be worked out on the talk page of an article, not by revert warring in the article itself. Thank you. --Scimitar parley 17:48, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

  • Now, I've only had time to take a relatively quick look at the article's talk page, and your edit in particular, but it seems to me that a) The Weekly Standard is a particularly biased source, b) the alleged link between Hussein and Al-Qaeda has always been controversial (and I know this because I've read several books and newspaper articles published prior to 9/11 on the subject of Middle-Eastern based terrorism- Hussein is certainly not a friend to religious extremist Muslims, as he's a secular dictator, not a religious fundamentalist) and c) I'm afraid that your information probably would be better suited to other articles, like the ones on Atta and the 9/11 commisison- I tend to agree with the opinion of others that it isn't terribly connected to Hussein, just because the only source that I saw you reference was a speculative piece in the Standard. If you have a better reference than that, that's another matter. That said, I'm an interested amateur, not an expert, on the subject, and my interest right now is in making it clear that edit-warring is harmful. If you cant talk it out, I suggest seeing Wikipedia:Dispute resolution.--Scimitar parley 14:17, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
    • I warned you about 3RR. Don't break the rules. I've blocked you for an hour just to show you that there are consequences for violating policy. If you continue, you won't just be hearing from me- you'll be potentially facing an RfC or the Arbitration Committee. Now, if you have a problem with article content, go the proper route. Don't break 3RR. --Scimitar parley 14:30, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] spreading disinformation

Please do not use wikipedia to spread disinformation that has been refuted by investigations. You seem to be trying to make it into a soapbox for your conspiracy theory. We have hashed out the arguments on the proper page and you seem to have given up discussing it there. I thought it was because you had come to your senses and realized that your edits were incorrect. Now I see you seem to be trying to slip this disinformation in "under the radar" on other pages. Adding newspaper quotes from 1998 that have since proven to be false is really poor conduct in terms of Wikipedia etiquette. Especially when we have already had a debate on another talk page about those very quotes. So please do not continue to conduct yourself in this manner. Put edits on the proper page and let us discuss them there instead of avoiding the debate on the issues. Thank you. --csloat 19:14, 26 September 2005 (UTC)

csloat, none of the information in my edits have been refuted by anyone. I am surprised at your accusations. You are the one who has asked me to add information to other pages, such as the Able Danger page and the 9/11 Commission article. None of the newspaper quotes have been proven false and the information remains on the original page. All of my edits added value, context and information readers will find interesting and informative. RonCram 01:13, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

Ron, the connection between Able Danger and the Saddam/AQ connection has been refuted over and over by me. Stop playing dumb. I asked you to put it only on pages where it was relevant, not to add it maliciously to pages where it has no relevance so you can keep your conspiracy theory alive. Your edits add nothing of substance to those other pages except to mislead people that this conspiracy theory has credibility.--csloat 01:39, 27 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] CfD

There is a vote going on at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion/Log/2005 November 7#Category:Soviet spies to Category:Aed Soviet spies. This is a challenge to the sourcing of Venona project materials & direct related article series. I'd appreciate it if you could take a look. Thank you. nobs 02:28, 9 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Greetings!

Introducing myself. I am Evensong. And I'm a Plame-aholic. Seen you on the Plame Affair discussion board. Here is a link you may be interested in. You may already have it. The Best Plamegate Coverage AnywhereEvensong 23:40, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Seeking Help

I am preparing conduct RFC's against User:Commodore Sloat and User:Ryan Freisling. They have been harrassing me because I have resisted their attempts to push POV in several articles, including Plame Affair and Larry C. Johnson. They and their POV allies have just lauched an unjustified attack RFC on my conduct.[1] I will eventually need someone to join me to certify both RFC's. Could you please review the situation. If you agree that their conduct is becoming a problem and you haven't already done so, could you weigh in on their talk pages or one of the article talk pages (a pre-requisite to certify a conduct RFC)? It would be appreciated. Thanks! --Mr j galt 00:18, 5 February 2006 (UTC)-

[edit] Plamegate Dispute

Ron, I thought I would chip in my 2 cents. There are days when I find cstoat maddening, (ryanf actually much less so), but cstoat and ryanf are both willing to work in the talk pages, and I think that the debate between people who disagree is important for wikipedia to be fair and complete.

I appeciate your contributions too, and just want to chip in. I think you'll find that if you back off on the "You're pushing your POV" and switch to "I think it's important that we say . . .", you'll find there's some common ground. Thanks, TheronJ 16:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Theron, I appreciate your trying to mediate. Unfortunately, Ryan and csloat so commonly fight over POV that ignoring their POV-pushing is not possible. I first learned the term of POV-pusher from csloat because he accused me of it when I tried to bring some balance to one of the articles he was editing. It is funny that you find Ryan less of a POV pusher. I have never seen her make a concession no matter how strongly the facts are against her. csloat will make a concession on occasion but not if he thinks the point is crucial to his POV. You can read more of my comments about their conduct on the RFC on Mr j galt. RonCram 17:10, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] POV Brick Wall

I got your message left on my discussion page. The page changes so rapidly and the actual affair changes rapidly too. I will do what I can to bring balance to the page, but my time is for now limited. #1 on my list of changes is the Book of Honor portion of the page where it is speculated that there was damage due to the Plame leak because there is an anonymous star in the book. That is raw speculation. The assertion has zero support anywhere but for Kos and the DU. Even Kos called it unvarnished speculation. Now another page has appeared on Kos citing the wikipedia article in support of the position that harm was done. Kos supports wiki, whiki then supports Kos, with no documentation. It's the echo chamber effect. It is irresponsible editing and it must go. Evensong 02:09, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Evensong is correct here. I am still around, just taking a little wikibreak. I strongly support your efforts to restore NPOV on the Plame Affair site. Let me know if I can be of any help.--Mr j galt 10:51, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] At least try to be NPOV, Ron!

Come on Ron - you hit a new low with your edits to the Negroponte and the Shaw articles. Your entries were entirely one-sided. In the case of Negroponte you took a source with a known bias and reputation for distortion, the Weekly Standard, and used it as your exclusive source of information even though Negroponte's own office addressed the issue and you were well aware of it. Your work creating the Shaw article was even worse -- excluding all information about the fact that this guy was a known criminal under FBI investigation and instead pretending his "October Surprise" accusations that were sheer electioneering had some kind of merit. In that case you were also well aware of what you were leaving out since you included the LATimes article from July 2004 mentioning the investigation in your references. Yet you relied exclusively on the Moonie controlled Washington Times for your information and even then only used one side of the story from that source! I know you have your biases and conspiracy theories, and you are welcome to them, but at least try to write things with NPOV in mind, and when you know of another side to a story please include some reference to it. Other editors are less likely to pounce on your edits if you are more thoughtful about them.--csloat 04:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The Weekly Standard is a conservative publication. That does not mean contents of the publication should be banned from public discourse. It is your extremely partisan POV that causes you to think so. If you feel information was excluded regarding Negroponte, you are welcome to include it. You know very well that I do not practice censorship in the way you do. Regarding Shaw, I included citations about the charges against Shaw as well as the charges he made, the same charges he continues to make in public. It is truly amusing to have you lecture me on writing with NPOV in mind, because that is something you never do. You never would have included citations on the charges against Shaw if you did not want readers to know that information. RonCram 16:27, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop distorting my claims, Ron. I never said it should be banned from public discourse; what I said was that it was blatantly POV to only include their take on something when there is information from more reliable sources that you know is available. I did include the information that you excluded. I know that you do practice censorship by leaving out important parts of the story when you can get away with it and by deleting relevant information while disguising your deletions in other edits. You have done this time and time again. In the Shaw article you only included information suggesting that Shaw was right all along. As for your accusations about me, you are flat out wrong and anyone can see that -- I often include perspectives other my own when I know of such information, and I never censor such information when it is there. As I have said over and over again, my philosophy is that the remedy for false information is to present the true information alongside it rather than delete information that is there. You are the one who presented the Shaw entry as if he was some kind of important hero rather than a criminal, so don't tell me I would have excluded information about him.--csloat 17:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
I am not twisting your words csloat. Weekly Standard is a reliable source. CBS (Dan Rather), NBC (trucks rigged to blow up) and NY Times (Jayson Blair) are all less reliable than Weekly Standard, yet you would prefer any of these sources because they are measurably more liberal (see the UCLA study that measured media bias) than Weekly Standard. Your recent critcism of my deleting the date you provided for the Saddam Tapes is a rarity. I discussed the fact the date you provided is probably wrong and why. Your entry failed to provide a citation for the date as well. Regarding your censorship, you have a long history of deleting well-documented and relevant information. You make up any number of excuses (wrong page, not relevant, debunked elsewhere, etc.) that are simply not true. You also have a reputation for rallying fellow editors to your side to delete valid entries as well. I defy you to name one entry you made on the Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda page that would support the idea of a link. In fact, when I first arrived at the page you wanted the article title to include "Conspiracy Theory" in a VERY strong attempt at POV. All this despite the fact the Senate Report on PreWar Intelligence admits Saddam trained al-Qaeda. I can show many, many valid entries you deleted repeatedly. Your sense of fair play needs an overhaul. Regarding Shaw, I do not view him as a criminal. No charges have been filed against him. Shaw lost his job but not because of any malfeasance on his part but apparently only because he exceeded his authority in disclosing the Russians helped moved the WMD out of Iraq. The official reason he left office was because a reorganization of the office cut his position. Calling Shaw a criminal only shows your POV. RonCram 23:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You twisted my words when you claimed that I wanted the Weekly Standard "banned from public discourse." I am not going to debate your ludicrous assertion that a weekly political rag is more reliable than daily news sources with real reporters on staff rather than "commentators." As for the Saddam tapes, please respond to my arguments where I made them if you think they are wrong; as it is you have conceded that the tapes most likely refer to 1990 and that Saddam says he warned us in 1989; you have asserted the nonsensical view that Saddam was referring to three years in the future. I have not censored things Ron and you are just making ridiculous assertions; either back these up with evidence or back off. The Saddam/AQ page is a conspiracy theory and I have put in information on both sides as you are well aware; however, the balance of evidence in nearly every case points to no cooperation between the two (as you are also well aware). The details have been debated to death on that talk page; you have had your say there, so it's disingenuous to bring up various examples out of context here to try to prove I am hurting wikipedia somehow by researching these things and insisting on accuracy. The Russians did not help Iraq move WMD anywhere as the evidence shows; read the articles yourself. Shaw is under FBI investigation for misuse of intelligence to enrich his friends with lucrative contracts - that makes him a criminal in my mind, yes (or at least a criminal suspect at this point). And I don't have a strong POV there - I had never heard of Shaw until reading the articles that you put on the bibliography! Anyway I have no interest in debating you on these points; it's pretty clear to me you have a tenuous grip on reality at best. I know I won't convince you, and you won't convince me. The point is not to convince each other but to collaborate as best as possible in creating accurate encyclopedic entries.--csloat 23:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you continue to attack the Weekly Standard without basis. Some of the most respected names in journalism write for that publication and your attacks against it are purely partisan. My attacks on CBS, et al had to do with the way they manufactured stories. The Saddam Tapes are thought to be from the mid-90s up to post-2000, not from 1990. You continue to make a serious error when you think I have conceded a point merely because I quit talking to you about it. It may be that work has called me away and I never got back to it or it may be that I have simply tired of talking to you. I have told you repeatedly not to assume I have conceded anything just because I have not responded to you. The truth is not established by the last man standing. Your failure to consider the evidence allows you to continue a position that has long been debunked. The assertions I have made about your deleting valid entries can be easily validated. Knowing my ability to research and back up what I say, do you really want me to support these assertions? I don't think so. Your POV does not allow you to honestly evaluate the evidence of Russians moving the WMD. The satellite images back up Shaw and so do the British. Yet you fail to give any credence or value to this evidence. It was nice of you to mention the fact I cited articles not favorable to Shaw. Given that fact, I wonder why you have attacked me for POV? Shaw has made charges against Doug Feith (you should like Shaw for that) and Feith's people have responded in kind. I do not know the full story but since none of Shaw's friends got any contracts, I doubt any criminal activity can be proven against Shaw. and whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty" anyway? Why doesn't John Shaw get the benefit of the doubt? Just because he went public with the fact the Russians helped the Iraqis move their WMD? Your POV is showing. Now, I want to ask a favor of you. Stop posting on my user talk page. If you have something to say about one of my entries, say on the appropriate Talk page. RonCram 01:10, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] High Praise for Weekly Standard

"The preeminent political journal in America." —Slate.com

"The oracle of American politics" —CNN's Wolf Blitzer

"...The Weekly Standard has become a forceful presence in the world of political opinion...It is the most intelligent, aggressive and well-written publication out there." —National Journal

"Has The Weekly Standard become the most powerful magazine, Mara?" "Brit, it certainly has." —exchange between anchorman Brit Hume and reporter Mara Liasson, Fox News Channel

"The Standard's editors have inaugurated one of the most interesting Beltway debates in years." —The New Republic

"DC's opinion makers are reading The Weekly Standard." —PRWEEK

"[The Weekly Standard] is the magazine I get most grumpy about when it's not delivered." —Abe Rosenthal, former editor, The New York Times

"I don't think you can do without it if you want to know what's going on in Washington." —Robert Novak

"Widespread reaction to the editorial proved that of the roughly 65,000 people who read the Standard each week, many are what you might call important." —GQ Magazine

"The Weekly Standard is required reading up here. You have to see it to be a part of the conversation." —John Kasich, former House Budget Committee Chair

"[One of] Washington's better read political magazines" —The Economist

"The Weekly Standard is a must-read for people in Washington." —Jack Nelson, The Los Angeles Times

"The Weekly Standard [has] the advantage of possessing...editors whose insights and arguments are uncommonly provocative...[They] know Washington, know politics and have demonstrated over the years a rare capacity for civil and unusually sensible argument and analysis." —David Broder, The Washington Post

"...you speak in two very influential pulpits. You're on television a lot of the time...and you're the editor of an influential magazine." —Peter Jennings, ABC News [live interview with William Kristol]

"The Weekly Standard is a 'must read' for anyone interested in American politics and American life." —William J. Bennett

[edit] Wikipedia policy on NPOV

Wikipedia describes NPOV as "absolute and non-negotiable." For more information on how to comply with this policy, please read Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. To summarize, NPOV does not seek to exclude all POV. Rather, the goal is to allow POV from both sides. Weekly Standard is a persuasive conservative publication that powerfully affects mainstream political thought. It is the magazine's unusually intelligent analysis that makes it so persuasive and required reading. Because Weekly Standard is one of the few conservative publications, it is all the more important that its analysis is included in articles in order to achieve NPOV. For these reasons, the Weekly Standard should be sought out, not shunned, by wikipedia editors. RonCram 16:06, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disruption of Wikipedia

Ron I must again implore you to stop disrupting wikipedia. You keep hurling personal insults -- that I am censoring you or stalking you -- meanwhile you are censoring valid information about the only real study of the OIF Documents in existence. You also made it clear in your requests that other people "come and join the fun" bashing me and Ryan that you consider all of this a sort of pissing contest. It is not. This is an encyclopedia. I realize you don't agree with the things I have to say here but my goal is to keep wikipedia accurate and well sourced. My goal is not to play games with you or anyone else. I ask that you treat wikipedia as an encyclopedia, not as a playground.--csloat 18:48, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, you might look in the mirror when alleging that people are in violation of WP:C. As far as your self proclaimed "goal", two words come to mind: Wayne Madsen. Toodles. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 21:06, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User notice: temporary 3RR block on Operation_Iraqi_Freedom_Documents

You have been temporarily blocked for violation of the three-revert rule. Please feel free to return after the block expires, but also please make an effort to discuss your changes further in the future. The duration of the block is 24 hours. William M. Connolley 19:42, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Larry C. Johnson article

I'm sorry that you have had to deal with POV pushers alone and it resulted in a block. I should have been there to help you. csloat and RyanFreisling have been clearly gaming the 3RR rule by working in tandem to revert your edits. I will begin watching that page now and, although I am very busy with school, I will try help out where I can. Could you also take a look at the Larry C. Johnson article? Johnson is a bit player in the Plame Affair. The article is yet another where political blog writer csloat relentlessly reverts and attempts to bully anyone who tries to restore POV. --Mr j galt 03:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Talk:Michael Scheuer

See my comments at that page. Merecat 21:08, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mary O. McCarthy

This page is worth a look-see. Evensong 05:11, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC alert

See this Wikipedia:Requests for comment/User:Mr j galt. Merecat 17:42, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Michael Scheuer

Michael Scheuer's credibility is important to csloat. That's why he is attempting to minimize Scheuer's inconsistent comments. I suggest that you remove the bullet point section entirely, and focus on the criticism section. Also, cite the book corresponding to quotes. As it stands now, the page cited in the article are unclear as to what book they reference. Csloat is trying to beat you with a structure argument, (e.g. repitition, redendancy, etc.) Remind him that you are citing facts and that it is up to the reader to decide the implication of those facts. Evensong 05:25, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Michael Scheuer's credibility is not important to me; accuracy is. I am not attempting to minimize anything; I am simply insisting that the article reflect the notability of Scheuer's comments accurately. Please don't put words or intentions into my mouth, Mr. song.--csloat 23:35, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
Get a grip on the issue, Csloat. Scheuer made repeated statements on the issue. RonCam gets to bring those repeated statements out to make his point. All of which are based on fact. Your deleting them claiming that it is RonCam, not Scheuer, that repeats himself just will not cut it. Evensong 03:10, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Evensong. I guess Wikipedia should simply reprint every word of Scheuer's book. Or are you just suggesting that the one chapter where he makes these repetitive comments should be duplicated here word for word? You're the one who needs a "grip." Here's a thought - why don't you actually read the book yourself, and then tell us what you think it is about? Anyway, let's take future comments on this to the Scheuer page; I don't think it belongs on Ron's user page.--csloat 23:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I responded Re this subject on my talk page.--CSTAR 00:41, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

If you haven't done so yet, please go to: Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Merecat right away and add your perspective. Merecat 17:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your voted needed

Please go here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rationales to impeach George W. Bush (2nd nomination). I voted for delete. You may also want to (if that's your preference) Merecat 08:24, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Cuba

Hi,

I am sending this message to editors I know who have done work on articles related to communism.

Adam Carr recently started bringing the Cuba article up to standard, gradually rewriting each section. In the meantime, his work has been resisted for several weeks by a group of Castro supporters who dispute, among other things, that the fact that Cuba is not a democracy. Adam Carr is now at a conference for a couple of weeks, meaning his work will likely be undone. If you have the time and the interest, please take a look.

Best regards. 172 | Talk 05:28, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein

Notice that the existing structure of the article is mostly chronological, not topical. His support for terrorism should be detailed in a concise manner, as this is only the general bio article on Saddam Hussein, throughout the article in relevant sections, depending on the chronology. Thus, a specific section on "support for terrorism" is not helpful. 172 | Talk 22:56, 10 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Stalking

I have never stalked you Ron. Please remove your comment about that on 172's talk page. As you are well aware, I had started that conversation on the Talk:Saddam Hussein page. When 172 participated on the page, you took your complaint to his talk page (which I was well aware of, since both are on my watchlist). There was no stalking involved. If you want a private conversation with someone, send them an email. Don't feign offense just because known troll User:TDC jumped down my throat about it. That conversation was about edits to the Saddam Hussein page, not about some private matter. It is your decision if you want to be a follower instead of a leader, Ron, but if that's the choice you wish to make, I'd advise you not to follow known trolls.--csloat 05:23, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

csloat, you constantly show up on almost any page I edit. Why would you have a User Talk page on your watch list? Why would you feel you need to comment in a conversation between 172 and myself? Do you think 172 cannot hold up his end of a conversation? Your harassment is going too far. TDC may have been the first to talk about your stalking but I noticed it long before he mentioned it. At first I chalked it up to our both being interested in the same subjects. When you followed me to subjects farther afield, it made me uncomfortable. But when you follow me to a User Talk page, that is truly over the line. I would advise you to take some time off from wikipedia.RonCram 09:42, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have every user talk page that I have edited on my talk list, as do you. Don't play dumb. I commented because it dealt with edits to the Saddam Hussein page. I had engaged you in talk on that page but you refused to support your arguments there, as you are well aware. I never stalked you, as you are well aware. If you are confused, you might look at Wikipedia:Harassment. Specifically note the following: "This does not include checking up on an editor to fix errors or violations of Wikipedia policy, nor does it mean reading a user's contribution log; those logs are public for good reason." In fact I did not even do those things; I simply responded on topic to a discussion about the Saddam Hussein article, specifically about passages in that article that we both had been editing. You are simply wikilawyering, raising phony harrassment charges as a red herring rather than actually debate the issues, since you know you are wrong about the issues and will lose the debate. If it makes you uncomfortable to lose debates, Ron, then stop advocating indefensible positions in them. I would advise you not to tell me what to do.--csloat 09:53, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
You are wrong. I do not have every User Talk page I have edited on my watchlist. My own Talk page is on my watchlist and that is all. What "error" of mine did you think was possible or pertinent on 172's Talk page? Why would you feel it necessary for you to insert yourself into our conversation? This is bad behavior, csloat. I would advise you to drop the issue and never do it again. Making a big deal out of this only makes it worse for you. I am willing to debate the issues as I have time. I actually have to spend some time working. And you know full well that when I am not editing for days or weeks that it is because I am working on a time consuming project not because I have lost an argument. RonCram 10:07, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
Well perhaps you don't have the pages you edit on your watchlist, but I do. The error of yours is in continuing to defend your intellectually bankrupt position on Saddam and al-Qaeda. You lost the argument on that page, so you try to stick your conspiracy theories on the Saddam page. Then when you are losing the debate on the Saddam page, you take it to 172's talk page. I don't understand what is "bad behavior" about responding to arguments relevant to the discussion that I was a participant in. I am not the one making a big deal out of it; you brought it up; you pretended to have your feelings hurt; you disingenuously accused me of stalking. I did nothing but participate in a discussion about Saddam. You may be working on a project but that has nothing to do with the fact that you have lost this argument over and over Ron. It is ok to lose arguments; I suggest you just move on. If you have interesting theories about Saddam and al-Qaeda, start a blog. But please stop trying to impose your theories on an encyclopedia when they are not backed up by evidence in the real world. Thanks.--csloat 10:44, 13 June 2006 (UTC)
I have not lost the argument. I will be returning to the Saddam and al-Qaeda page. You know as well as I do that the Operation Iraqi Freedom documents are adding new evidence to the discussion and changing people's minds, including 9/11 Commissioner Bob Kerrey. Returning to the subject of your bad behavior: I was not speaking to you. I was talking to 172. To insert yourself into a conversation you were not a part of is rude and uncalled for. If you do not understand that, I do not know how to help you. If I had wanted you to be a part of our conversation, I would have asked 172 the question on the article Talk page. Oh, and I think you misunderstood me earlier. I did not say I never lose arguments. I did say that I do not run and hide if I lose one. I know that is one of your fantasies but it simply is not true. This is the end of this discussion. Anything else you post on my Talk page I will delete to save you from any further embarassment. RonCram 10:57, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

Sloat, your repeated claims that you have never stalked anyone does not hold up under scrutiny. I have (as well as Ron and a number of other users to be sure) on far to many occasions that after an edit war or content dispute with you on an article, you immediately show up editing another completely unrelated article that we have been working on. I can only suspect that after you “won” a particular debate you feel emboldened enough and dig though our contributions for another victory lap. This has to stop sloat; it completely flies in the face of civility, and harassment.

Consider this your last warning.

The sad thing is that you see this as some kind of battle of wills and wits with other users instead of what it should be: a collaboration to write well informed article that abide by Wikipedia’s guidelines.

And before you begin pointing fingers at me, you brought my name into this. Torturous Devastating Cudgel 14:28, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RfC

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Commodore Sloat Torturous Devastating Cudgel 17:01, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

It will take some time for me to peruse the complaint, but I did a "once over" on it. It only scratches the tip of the iceberg. Evensong 04:54, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rfc (bis)

csloat left a note on my page about your RfC to which I responded. Please have a look and feel free to make any comments on my page. Thanks --CSTAR 01:35, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

Thanks for the note. While I have some knowledge of the political history of modern Iraq, I'm no intelligence analyst. I'm also pretty over-streched on Wiki at the moment. (Right now, I've already promised to help weed the problematic references to propaganda sites like ZNet and Venezuelanalysis.com out of the Hugo Chavez article, cleanse the "libertarian socialism" article of loads of nonsense, and rewrite "types of socialism." I'm getting behind on all of these projects!) If I have time, I'll take a look at the article and try to do my best. If I don't make it to the article, I recommend getting users like TDC, MONGO, and ChrisO (a professional intelligence analyst, I believe), who've done competent work on similar subjects, to take a look. 172 | Talk 02:33, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

From a quick glance, the article strikes me as dramatically easier to read and much more logically organized after your rewrite. (I can't imagine anyone ever wanting to read the April 8, 2001 timeline entry in the old article, for example.) But my glance was too brief to make an informed evaluation of the content. The most I can say is that your version seems to be a better basis for improvement than the old article. 172 | Talk 02:48, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of RfC

Based on what seems to be WP policy, I have proposed deleting the RfC and will soon do so. This doesn't mean your I think your complaints have no merit, although I think the stalking one doesn't have merit. As I mentioned, if you want private conversations with other users, use Email ( I regularly read email that comes from WP -- it's not much but I read it). However, you would be better off trying an informal mediation process. If you like I would be willing to help. --CSTAR 01:02, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

I replied on my talk page. --CSTAR 16:18, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response

I'll look over Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda later this weekend...I am only able to check the links provded and determine if the text is supported by them. My knowledge of the subject matter is not strong but will assist as I can.--MONGO 21:15, 24 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hello

i haven't had a chance to thoroughly review your proposed rewrite of Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda, but i can tell that reaching any consensus on that page will be a difficult task. i appreciate you taking notice to my additions. i think the fox news translation is significant as well. i'd enjoy the opportunity to collaborate with you on the article. it seems lately all i do is debate and defend myself. it would be a nice change of pace to work with someone. i'm not sure where the article is headed, as i don't believe the entire story has been told yet, and i personally haven't reached any conclusions either way. do you think you could provide links to articles you find most informative on the topic on my discussion page, or should i just read your rewrite? as far as setting up an email, i'm not sure how to do that but it may not be necessary. thanks. Anthonymendoza 01:19, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

As far as setting up an email, just click on the link to the left that says "Email this user" and wikipedia will walk you through the process of setting up an email. Email is an excellent opportunity to move the discussion forward without being disrupted by others. One of Sloat's tactics is to keep the football (meaning that he always has to reply to every statement one makes). If you do not reply, then he claims you implicitly agreed with his POV. Regarding the story not being told yet, I have to agree. However, we can accurately tell what has happened so far. My suggestion is you read through the rewrite the first time without looking at the sources just to check it for readability. Then read it through again checking the sources to make certain I am not overstating the case at all. I know it is a long process, but it is well worth it. I am open to any suggestions you may have to make it better. Once you have email set up, we can talk more. RonCram 11:26, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming and related topics

Hi Ron! While we typically disagree on these topics, it's rather refreshing to have an opponent who actually is capable of changing his opinion at least in the small. May I suggest that you do try to read a couple of the reports we are talking about (e.g. the IPCC WG1 report and the recent NAS report)? At least the summary sections are usually quite accessible,and it would help us to at least have a basic common understanding of the state of the art. Many second and third hand sources on either side of the debate are quite unreliable. Have fun! --Stephan Schulz 18:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A barnstar

The Original Barnstar
Here is a barnstar for your absolutely brilliant rewrite of "Saddam Hussein and Al Qaeda". Huysman 00:10, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good faith

Please assume good faith when dealing with other editors. See Wikipedia:Assume good faith for the guidelines on this. BhaiSaab talk 19:17, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Criticisms of Muhammad (pbuh) have existed since the beginning of Islam. It's nothing new or significant. BhaiSaab talk 19:29, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether criticisms are valid since the founding of Islam are not for us to judge. If you intend on adding that again, please provide a source that states that her criticism and condition are the most significant criticisms to Islam in its history. BhaiSaab talk 19:38, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
The content of the criticism, i.e., what it says about the Prophet Muhammad(pbuh), is significant, yes - but can you prove that the criticism made by this women is significant itself? Personally, I think criticisms made by the likes of ibn Warraq are more significant than that of Wafa Sultans. BhaiSaab talk 19:49, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
Please do not accuse me of being sexist. We can continue this on the Talk:Islam page. BhaiSaab talk 19:59, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

You appear to be trolling. Try to avoid this sort of needless rhetorics, keep cool and polite and assume good faith. Happy editing, dab (ᛏ) 12:42, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] your comments in Talk:islam

ugh...... I just read one of the comments youmade on me. no I don't think you should be killed, but I do think you need therapy. violence was not taught by muhammed, but it was taught by wahabbi, some nutzo 18th century scholar who more or less founded terrorism. he was a loon yes, but don't mix his teachings up with muhammed's. he was chased and pursecuted by total barbarians, and his followers were in dire peril. what would YOU do if you were in a "with you or against you" situation? totally reasonable to ask people to defend themselves. do christians cut off their hands every time they masturbate? Zazaban 01:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proper sources

Please don't try to pass off POV pushing websites as reliable sources. Direct headline from cnsnews: Iran, Syria Relieved That Democrats Won. Come on, man... this is an encyclopedia. /Blaxthos 20:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

See my response on your user page. By the way, you should not be surprised that Iran, Syria and al-Qaeda were all relieved by the Democrats victory. If you had been reading, you would know what they have been saying for a long time. [2] RonCram 12:59, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
RonCram:
  1. Criminal offenses are indictable, which is done by the government in response to crimes against the state ("the people").
  2. Civil torts (lawsuits) are brought by individuals for remediation from a personal wrong.
  3. Slander and libel are damaging ("defamatory statements") to an individual. As such, relief from libel would come in the form of a civil action initiated against you by the defamed party. In no way has anyone accused you of an indictable criminal defense -- your claim seems like bluster with little understanding of what you're talking about.
  4. Personal attacks are ones in which a post deals with the editor instead of the content. The source refers to Conservative News Service (the source you quoted), and is unreliable. Your accusations refers to you insisting that the Senator committed treason (the only criminal offense outlined in the Constitution; punishable by death). Libelous means a written defamatory statement. Where exactly are you discussed in my post at all? False claims of personal attacks revoke the good faith we assume, and destroys any credibility you might have had.
  5. The bias of the New York Times has no relevance here. We're discussing the reliability of your source, CNS News.
  6. WP:BLP is very clear about the additional rigor to which negative information about living persons must be subjected.
Now, you're trying to insert an accusation of treason against a sitting U.S. Senator using a source that admittedly has a bias against the Senator. Doesn't that seem a little egregious to you? Hope this helps. /Blaxthos 07:27, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
“ Jimmy Wales considers "no" information to be better than "speculative" information and reemphasizes the need for sensitivity ”
 
— WP:BLP
“ Real people are involved, and they can be hurt by your words. We are not tabloid journalism, we are an encyclopedia. ”
 
— Jimbo Wales

[edit] Response to Blaxthos

Blaxthos, civil libel actions are more common than criminal libel, but libel is a crime and can be prosecuted by the state. Check out this article on "Libel and the Law." [3] I complained about your attack against me because any reader of your statement would believe I was the source of an accusation against Senator Kennedy. You wrote "Your source is unreliable and your accusation libelous." It is not my accusation. I only seek to have the published and verified reporting on the issue included in this article on Kennedy. It is against wikipedia policy to prevent the inclusion of information on POV grounds. Read carefully this excerpt from the guidelines for biographies of living persons.

Editors should be on the lookout for biased or malicious content in biographies or biographical information. If someone appears to be pushing an agenda or a biased point of view, insist on reliable third-party published sources and a clear demonstration of relevance to the person's notability.
The views of critics should be represented if their views are relevant to the subject's notability and are based on reliable sources, and so long as the material is written in a manner that does not overwhelm the article or appear to side with the critics' material. Be careful not to give a disproportionate amount of space to critics, to avoid the effect of representing a minority view as if it were the majority one. If the criticism represents the views of a tiny minority, it has no place in the article.
Content should be sourced to reliable sources and should be about the subject of the article specifically. Beware of positive or negative claims that rely on association.

I want to make certain you read my response on the Kennedy Talk page, so here it is again.

[edit] No controversy on Kennedy-KGB link

It was nice to see Seraphimblade agree that the source for the CNS News and Washington Times op-ed piece is solid. (As an aside Seraphimblade, your conclusion that the Washington Times piece "is an editorial and therefore inherently unreliable" is not exactly accurate. Any reader is free to disagree with the conclusions of an op-ed piece, however, the facts presented in the piece have to reach the same level of accuracy and verifiability as any reporting. When reading op-eds, you have to be able to separate the reporting from the opinion. It is common practice for op-ed pieces to be linked on wikipedia.) It is wrong to say a controversy exists on the issue because neither Senator Kennedy nor John Tunney have denied the story. The story is based on far more than the recently released book by Paul Kengor. Kengor's research has certainly moved the story along by providing fresh details, but the story is based on several recovered KGB documents. Former KGB agent Vasiliy Mitrokhin published a paper in February 2002 based on document(s) he found. You can read that paper on pdf here. [4] An op-ed piece by Herbert Romerstein gives some additional facts. One of the KGB documents "was found by the knowledgeable Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats and published in Moscow's Izvestia in June 1992." The first document was "discovered in the Soviet archives by London Times reporter Tim Sebastian and a report on it was published in that newspaper in February 1992." [5] According to the London Times, businessman John Tunney (he was already a former senator by this time) admitted going to the Soviet Union on 15 occasions during the late 1970s and early 1980s to represent Kennedy and other senators. There is certainly more to the story and more of it will come out. However, we cannot say the story is "too new" for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The story has been verified repeatedly and has never been denied by Senator Kennedy or John Tunney. RonCram 10:26, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] RFC Closed, Ted Kennedy

RfC regarding the material you tried to insert into the Ted Kennedy article is now closed. The result was unanimous reject. /Blaxthos 00:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

IMO you've broken 3RR re-inserting B+G into Attribution of recent climate change & I've reported you for it William M. Connolley 19:07, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, try to slow it down. Dr. Connolley is an actual scientist, and we should be glad to have him on board. Please don't quarrel with him.
If you think something isn't presented fairly, please bring it up on the talk page and try to generate consensus.
Meanwhile, here's some interesting material for an article:
  • Three philanthropic organizations -- the Energy Foundation, the Pew Charitable Trusts, and the William and Flora Hewlett Foundation -- provided nearly $66.5 million in funding for climate-change research from 2000 to 2002. That's more than half of the $112.1 million in climate-change money that was passed out by the top 20 private foundations during the three-year period.
  • According to the report, most of the money went to groups that favor "restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions and believe that climate change requires dramatic government action."The top recipient was Strategies for the Global Environment, which is the umbrella organization for the Pew Center on Global Climate Change, an Arlington, Va.-based advocacy group. The foundations also heavily favored the Natural Resources Defense Council, the Union of Concerned Scientists, and Environmental Defense. [6] --Uncle Ed 16:08, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming discussion

RonCram,

For Mann, McIntyre & McKitrick, and the Hockey Stick, see here: http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=11 McIntyre & McKitrick's analysis was wrong, and this has been addressed repeatedly in scientific literature. Further, Mann's data is available for you to see yourself, here: ftp://holocene.evsc.virginia.edu/pub/sdr/temp/nature/MANNETAL98/

Global warming via greenhouse gases was 1st proposed in the 1930s. For a history of the global warming story, see here: http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.html Study of CO2 concentrations began in the 50s, and more serious concerns and study began in the 70s. The number of scientists that proposed global cooling was small ("count them on 1 hand" small), and there was no consensus on the matter. Not ever, period. That Time ran an article doesn't change this. Other papers in the same period proposed that we might enter a warming period because of CO2. There was no consensus on either. We'd just started to figure out that climate was not as stable as we'd previously assumed, and that it could change, though we did not know in which direction. As soon as the late 80s we were could see that there was a potential problem, and one serious enough that the IPCC was commissioned.

The warmest year on record is not 1998, it's 2005. (Edit: They're extremely close, and it isn't clear that 2005 is the winner. My error. While 2005 was a record for the Northern Hemisphere, it isn't clear which year was warmer from a global average standpoint. In any case, a quick look at the graph of global average temperatures will reveal that we are not cooling, but that 1998 was unusually warm due to a strong El Nino effect at that time. The upward trend is unmistakable. ) Temperatures vary from year to year, but there is a clear overall trend. See these graphs: http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/data/temperature/nhshgl.gif While 1998 was exceptionally hot, average temperatures have risen since then. 1973, 1983, and 1990 were also exceptionally hot years, but we have surpassed them all. 11 of the 12 hottest years on instrument record happened in the last 12 years.

As far as the 7 year trend in the 70s, human aerosol emissions caused a cooling period between the 40s and the 70s that interrupted this century's warming. Efforts to clean up acid-rain removed those aerosols, and warming became the dominant effect again. What you see is a restart, and not a beginning. This is all well documented, and has been re-hashed a thousand times. These arguments have been proposed before, and they have all been rebutted. It's not my intention to criticize you directly, the problem is that there are an overwhelming number of misleading sources on this. Psuedoscience you might say.

There is a reason that http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_global_warming_consensus contains only 21 scientists, many of whom actually agree that we've caused global warming, but just don't think it's noteworthy. There's a reason why some of their arguments are as substanceless as "We need to find out how much of the warming we are seeing could be due to mankind, because I still maintain we have no idea how much you can attribute to mankind." (dated 2006, and completely false), and why the remainder of them do not even agree on a single opposing position. Their common thread is not common science, but a common call for inaction.

Contrast this to the global consensus - and I'll just say it one more time - the U.S. fully supports the IPCC conclusions, and participated significantly in creating them.

U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman told a news conference that the report was "sound science," and:

"As the president has said, and this report makes clear, human activity is attributing to changes in our earth's climate and that issue is no longer up for debate."

Kurt Volker, a U.S. diplomat said

"We support the recent IPCC report, in which U.S. scientists played a leading role."

Here is Sharon Hays, deputy director of the U.S. Office of Science and Technology Policy, and lead U.S. delegate to the IPCC in a BBC interview:

Hays: Well, the U.S. has played a very strong role in developing the climate science that we were talking about at this meeting. The Bush administration has spent over $9 Billion on climate change science research and over $29 Billion on all of our climate policies and research and technology put together. So, I really feel that in many ways that if it weren’t for that investment that we wouldn’t be able to have a report with the kind of certainty that we do today.

BBC: It’s unequivocal—human beings have most likely been the ones who have caused global warming and the American government and the American scientists are right behind that.

Hays: There’s two different statements. One is that the warming of the planet is unequivocal, and that’s a very strong statement. It’s one that the U.S. supported because we believe it’s true. There is a second statement in the report , and that is that it is very likely that humans are behind the, at least partly behind, and mostly behind, the warming of the last 50 years.

BBC: And the American government is signing up to that as well?

Hays: Yes, we supported that at this meeting.

Here's Hays again:

“This Summary for Policymakers captures and summarizes the current state of climate science research and will serve as a valuable source of information for policymakers. It reflects the sizeable and robust body of knowledge regarding the physical science of climate change, including the finding that the Earth is warming and that human activities have very likely caused most of the warming of the last 50 years.”

And so on. It is telling that critics of the IPCC now attack it on nebulous political grounds, rather than addressing the science itself. There's a very, very good reason for that.

You seem sincere RonCram. I would suggest that you check out http://www.realclimate.org They're certainly not afraid to say when someone is overstating the case for global warming, as their series on hurricanes illustrates. Thanks for joining the discussion. Mishlai 03:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm looking for and cannot find a link to the Wegman report that isn't broken. Have one? Thanks for your help. Mishlai 04:53, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi Mishlai, there are working links at Temperature record of the past 1000 years and Hockey stick controversy. Look for the ones labeled "Ad hoc committee report on the ‘Hockey Stick’ Global Climate Reconstruction". The actual copy is hosted by the Heartland Institute, but seems to be ok. --Stephan Schulz 15:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming farce of an article about controversy

Ron, This may sound like a pain in the rear end, but I need your assistance and need you to contact me directly. But, considering the nefarious nature of the editors on the GW Contro page I need to take extra precautions.

  1. Please go to my user page.
  2. There is contact information.
  3. I will fill you in with some details

For the time being I will need your help documenting the bias issues. Or researching patterns by those users on other pages. Some of the other people I have been in contact with suggested we stop editing the page until all of our options are explored. -- Tony of Race to the Right 05:39, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

OR Please feel free to add examples of bias you have encountered by the pro-Global Warming crowd at my page...I am accumulating all of the evidence for various actions throughout Wikipedia for the pages, users, etc and your help with the footwork is appreciated. -- Tony of Race to the Right 15:04, 20 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Now they are trying to delete Solar system warming too!

Now Raymond Arritt and William M Connolley are trying to eradicate the Solar system warming article. I am sick and tired of this continuing censorship. If you agree with me, go and vote to save this article. Thanks, ~ Rameses 04:26, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Saw your conversation with Schultz over at the deletion page and thought you might be interested to read more about planetary motion: Precession of the equinoxes Milankovich cycle Those two are pretty good, and will make a jump point into other articles. Kim got a copy of the Wegman report to me, btw, so no need to respond to that. Mishlai 13:07, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline

Here is evidence of more people who are willing to delete articles to stop people reading and deciding for themselves - from User talk:Michaelbusch:=I think you'll enjoy this one=

Solar system warming Someguy1221 04:25, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Pretty bad. Someone should have caught it before it passed the speedy deletion deadline. Michaelbusch 04:54, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Is it possible to get NPOV on Wikipedia against these tactics? ~ Rameses 05:17, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] My academic training

Ron, my Ph.D. is in computer science (from Technical University of Munich). German universities award either a Dr.rer.nat. or a Dr.ing. for computer science. The rerum naturalis is used much like the Philosophy in Ph.D., only restricted to the hard sciences. My M.Sci. (actually, "Diplom") is in Computer Science with a minor in Physics. I'm not particularly interested in climate, I'm interested in having the science fairly presented on Wikipedia (and elsewhere). I've also edited Creationism and similar contentious articles out of the same motivation. --Stephan Schulz 19:00, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Barnstar of Valour

 The Barnstar of Valour
In recognition of your defence of NPOV and fairness.
When one man stands tall, the backbones of all others are stiffened.
Remember you are not alone in believing Wikipedia should be free of censors and bias.
Good luck & many thanks. -- Brittainia 19:01, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I was going to put this "Barnstar of Valour" on your User Page, but wasn't sure if you would object. Please feel free to move it there if you would prefer to. It tends to get buried here. -- Brittainia 22:39, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Uber is being reviewed

Ron, I just got this message from Uber, he needs our help: Hello, friend. I'd like to inform you of the attacks and claims made by Raul654 to the administrator noticeboard regarding my actions. I whole heartedly believe my actions are just and warranted. Please review the current situation. Thank you. ~ UBeR 23:31, 28 February 2007 (UTC) We should write our views of the situation with the proof to show the degree of frustration which Uber and we all are suffering. If we cannot save Uber from this injustice, WMC and company will simply extend this witch hunt to all who do not support their POV. Thanks, -- Brittainia 00:07, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of a conspiracy

Ron I just posted something you will find very interesting here [7]. Please read and add your voice if you feel so inclined. -- Brittainia 06:09, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Final Proof of conspiracy - Raul654 filed complaint just to "get this monkey off WMC's back"

The following is from my recent post, please go to the Admin noticeboard and post your views on this now exposed conspiracy by a group of Administrators. It is at: -- Brittainia 05:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC) [8]

Raul654, this post [9] that you made just after UBeR filed a checkuser against William M. Connolley, clearly shows that this entire complaint against UBeR was orchestrated just to "get this monkey off WMC's back". The next step should be to stop this intentional diversionary complaint against UBeR and investigate your activities instead. Your entire group [10], [11], orchestrating these illicit activities should be thoroughly investigated by all those who have wasted a lot of their valuable time on your "getting this monkey off WMC's back". It is now clear that you yourself are guilty of most of the accusations which you have levelled at UBeR above, I believe that you and your co-conspirators should be permanently banned from editing global warming articles in order to stop the kind of bias, frustration and witch hunts which you are causing by your devious tactics. Everyone should know that this group are currently being investigated and exposed by a radio show for their hijacking of global warming articles as this group already knows [12] - thus they are bringing Wikipedia into disrepute. -- Brittainia 06:02, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McIntire and climate reconstructions

Hi Ron. While checking out ClimateAudit, I found the FAQ, including the following: [...] We think that a more interesting issue is whether the late 20th century was warmer than periods of similar length in the 11th century. We ourselves do not opine on this matter, other than to say that the MBH results relied upon so heavily by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change in its 2001 report are invalid." And a bit further up, they clearly answer the question "Are you saying the 15th century was warmer than the present?" with a resounding "No [...]".--Stephan Schulz 01:26, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephan. William and I have been around and around on this. I think we finally see eye to eye. William is correct when he says M&M have never done their own reconstructions. They do not express their opinion on the matter because they have not done their own reconstructions "from scratch." For them to do their own reconstructions, they would have to be confident that all of the proxies used were reliable. What M&M have done is a little different. They searched the literature and found that the proxies used by Mann and Jones were considered unreliable by experts in the field. Mann used the bristlecone pine series and Jones (if I remember correctly) used the Polar Urals series. The NAS and Wegman agreed with M&M regarding the bristlecone pine series. I don't think any third party has evaluated the McIntyre vs Jones controversy, but I'm certain any independent assessment would side with McI. What McI and McK did in both cases was remove the errors and rerun the reconstruction. What this effort does is provide readers who trust the remaining Mann and Jones proxies with accurate results. (If a particular reader trusted the Mann and Jones proxies prior to correction, then they should certainly accept the version after the errors have been removed.) McK published the corrected Mann version. McI published the corrected Jones reconstruction. In both cases the corrected reconstruction shows the 20th century was not outside natural climate variability. I hope this clears up the issue for you. RonCram 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ron. Mann et al actually used multi-proxy reconstruction, not single-proxy reconstruction. And your claim (and, to be fair, M&M's claim) is of course only correct if you a) accept their claim about the systematic error and b) accept their correction as correct. As far as I know, they have not found any support in the scientific literature. You might want to look at this RealClimate article (and, since you probably don't trust RealClimate, the original sources they cite). Also, since you like to have data and code, this page has all that for the Wahl and Amman paper, and finds all the "corrected" M&M versions to be statistically insignificant.--Stephan Schulz 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, to say that M&M have not found any support in the scientific literature is a bit bizarre. Perhaps your intent was more limited in scope. First, the Wegman panel supported M&M across the board.
The Wegeman report dealt only with statistical, not with climatological detail. Also....
I am sorry I do not know the entire composition of this panel but I know there were at least two anonymous reviewers to the Wegman Report so this has to be considered part of the “scientific literature.”
...that is plain wrong. The "anonymous reviewers" are not anonymous to Wegeman, but requested that their names should not be disclosed to third parties. From the answers to Stupak, it appears that Wegeman asked a few collegues to look over the report. That is in no way the same as a real anonymous peer review with reviewers selected by a neutral third party (the editor). In particular, the reviewers opinion had no influence on the publication of the report.
In addition to the Wegman Report, Wegman also published a response to Rep. Stupak. [13] Second, the NAS issued a report that was polite to Mann but agreed with M&M on all the disputed points of science. They agreed the bristlecone pine series is not reliable and should not be used. In spite of that, it is still being used today.
Your reading of the NAS report is bizarre. On the contrary, the NAS report granted some minor points, but reinforced the conclusions of MBH98 in all major topics. Try read it yourself, don't rely on the Mac's bowlderized interpretation.
Third, Burger and Cubasch examined M&M’s claim that MBH98 was not robust. They published in support of M&M: “Are Multiproxy Reconstructions Robust?” [14]
Not all criticisim of MBH98 supports M&M! This paper has nothing to do with M&M, but is independent criticism. I read it a while ago. The results depend on a particular climate model (I know you just love these!), and, moreover, all the reconstructions fit nicely within the error bars given in MBH98. This is not support for M&M at all.
Fourth, even the von Storch comment can be seen in support of M&M. Von Storch and Zorita published a comment noting they could reproduce the “Artificial Hockey Stick.” [15] However, they claimed it was not significant.
Again, that is a bizarre reading. The von Storch and Zorita paper actually attacks one aspect of M&M. It does not support them at all.
M&M responded with a paper showing that von Storch had found an example where it would not be significant but if they had examined the situation in MBH98, it is seen to be significant. [16] Von Storch has not replied, apparently conceding the point.
Von Storch probably has better things to do, especially since other papers since have shown that the MBH98 result is robust under various selection algorithms for principal components and even if no PCs are selected at all. There is no reason to belief that he has conceded the point. What is also interesting is that McIntyre claims to have re-read the vSZ 2005 note in 2006 and got a better appreciation - in other words, his previous note was apparently based on incomplete understanding.
Regarding the lengthy Wahl & Ammann piece you cited, although M&M were quite dismissive of an earlier attempt by W&A, it appears they have not commented on this particular version. I will not attempt to comment at this point, except to note that the criticisms of Burger and Cubasch would apparently hold regarding this effort by W&A as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you have that M&M “have not found any support in the scientific literature.” RonCram 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, it shows that they have found extremely limited support, while a couple of newer papers strongly disagree with them.
Stephan, I just found the ClimateAudit category "Wahl and Ammann." [17] So I guess McIntyre has responded and I did not realize it. Enjoy the reading! RonCram 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I have better things to do then read through M&Ms confused, patronizing bile. I've tried a few times, but got nothing useful from it. If they get something published in a real journal, I'll happily read it.--Stephan Schulz 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are humans affecting CO2 concentration?

Hi Ron. I want to ask you about what you said in one of the talk pages recently at

Talk:Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#.22Most_fiercely_contested.22.3F

There you seem to argue that we don't know if humans are the source of the 20th century increase in CO2 concentrations. Is that really your view? If so, why would you say that? I can see how you might question if CO2 is an important part of the greenhouse effect, or what the climate sensitivity is, or what the different forcing factors are.

But I don't see how you could reasonably question that humans emitted the additional CO2 that has shown up in the atmosphere in the last century. We have a very good account of how much fossil fuel is sold each year, since they are bought, sold and taxed, and records are kept of the money. We know the carbon content of each unit of coal, oil or gas, and from basic chemistry we know the amount of CO2 yielded from burning each unit of hydrocarbons. We also know the total mass of the atmosphere.

With the direct measurements we've made of CO2 concentration over the past 50 years, we can see how much more CO2 is in the atmosphere each year (the Keeling curve). You do accept that evidence, I trust? There's no M&M debate about these direct readings. Well, the ongoing increase turns out to be about half of what we calculate the fossil fuels are contributing. The excess is understood to be taken up by the oceans.

So do you really want to try to argue that humans are not the source of the rise from 280 to 380 ppm CO2 in the atmosphere? We know the amount of fossil fuels consumed, and we know the amount of CO2 that has to have produced. We have to explain where the products of combustion have gone, and we have to explain the Keeling Curve. Even if someone tried to say the Keeling Curve was a natural fluctuation (a very untenable position) they would have to explain where the CO2 from fossil fuel combustion went.

As far as I can see, if you want to claim that GW is non-anthropogenic, you can only reasonably do this on the basis of a claim that the climate sensitivity to CO2 is (very) low. It just doesn't seem at all viable to try to argue that humans were not the source of the rise in CO2. Sincerely, 04:50, 4 March 2007 (UTC)Birdbrainscan

I have read that the reason the IPCC does not show the historical charts of temperature and CO2 levels in the usual overlapping fashion - to show correlation - is that they show that temperatures rise historically before CO2 levels. Also, I understand that the climate models all ignore the main greenhouse gas, H2O vapour, and it's various effects (cloud formation etc.) because it is too complex to model currently. This would seem to render the models almost useless as it is like predicting tomorrow's weather while ignoring the clouds. Could you comment on these reports? BTW - good work on your "Global warming controversy" page so far, I will be happy to join in and contribute what I can. ~ Rameses 07:23, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ramses. I'll be happy to discuss these other questions of how much radiative forcing CO2 causes, historical patterns of CO2 and temperature, water vapour as a GHG (yes the models do treat this - it's essential!) I've taken courses on these issues and done lots of reading, so I have some ideas to offer on those too.
But right here I want to focus on this one issue: is there any reasonable way to claim that we don't know humans are behind the recent rise in CO2 levels? I think it is a lot easier to argue whether CO2 is causing warming (a more complex topic, for sure) but I just don't see how anyone can realistically argue that CO2 going from 280 to 380 ppm in 150 years is a natural fluctuation, not "our fault," given the amount of fossil fuel we know we've extracted, sold and burned. Thanks for your kind words; I'm just a newcomer to this so I've only put in a small contribution on a few pages, but I really enjoy this collaborative process.Birdbrainscan 14:48, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Birdbrainscan, my view on this has changed somewhat. The carbon cycle is a fascinating subject. CO2 is released into the atmosphere naturally from the oceans and the oceans are also a sink for CO2, so the annual natural flux can be much larger than the amount of CO2 mankind has put into the atmosphere in a given year. (The argument that changes in the isotopes of CO2 show the hand of mankind is untenable. Natural variation can easily explain changes in isotope ratios.) However, the buildup of atmospheric CO2 does seem to be the result of human activity. In fact, without the natural sinks we have - I think mainly the oceans but there are probably others that scientists may not even know about - the atmospheric CO2 increase would be even greater than it has been. What I think is interesting at this point is that it seems the Earth has a growing appetite for CO2. The more CO2 in the atmosphere, the bigger the natural sinks become. This is one of the negative feedbacks the IPCC seems to ignore. As the Earth greens, it creates more plant life that then consumes CO2. However, I don't think plant consumption as a mechanism is large enough by itself to explain the growing CO2 sinks we are observing. My guess is that the sink provided by the oceans is also growing as atmospheric CO2 increases. Best wishes. RonCram 19:17, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global warming

Interesting sandbox you're working on there, hope you don't mind me commenting.

My personal position on global warming is that it is happening, and that it is being caused by increased human CO2 production. The science seems to be more or less undeniable. I personally found The Great Global Warming Swindle unhelpful because it muddied the waters in a very unscientific way. It was persuasive, but the arguments underlying it were very shaky.

However, I defend Durkin's right to make the programme, and certainly it made me research these things much more thoroughly, which is good. It is now up to me (and people like me) to try and prove him wrong- debate is good.

I think Durkin missed the target, though, because there is a useful debate to be had about global warming:

1) What is the sensitivity of Earth's atmosphere to the production of more CO2? What are the positive and negative feedbacks? 2) How fast is global warming happening? How fast will it happen in the future? (which follows from question 1). 3) What will the effects be? Who will benefit, and who will suffer? 4) How much can we adapt? 5) What are the costs of ignoring it? What are the costs of trying to stop it now? 6) What are the risks of ignoring it? 7) Are there any sensible scientific options for reducing CO2, other than reducing reliance on fossil fuels?

That I think is the debate we should be having.

For what it's worth, I think the biggest effects will be in things like climate disruption. If fertile areas become unfertile, then that will put a lot of farmers out of business. Yes, other areas will become fertile, but (especially in the 3rd World) the effects could be enormous, in terms of famine, migration, war, etc.

The other issue is the risks. There are definitely feedback loops, e.g. Carl Wunsch highlights how the oceans will actually start to release CO2 as the temperature goes up, when currently they are absorbing it. The temperature on Earth has been far higher in the past, and although it has obviously come back down since (and there must be mechanisms for equalising eventually), we're talking hundreds or thousands of years to reach a balance at a level we would find comfortable.

Don't know what you think of all that.

--Merlinme 18:42, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Merlinme, your comments are welcome. There are two debates going on at the moment. One is the debate you describe above between the Warmers (the Alarmists like Jim Hansen, Phil Jones and Michael Mann) and the LukeWarmers (folks like Roger Pielke Sr and Christopher Landsea). Information regarding that debate is mainly found in the Global warming article. The debate I am outlining in the Sandbox is the debate between the Warmers and the Skeptics (people like Steve McIntyre, Ross McKitrick, Gerald Browning, Warwick Hughes and Richard Lindzen). It should be represented in the Global warming controversy article.
You made a comment above about the "unscientific way" the skeptics expressed their argument. I am not sure what you mean by that. As far as I know, each of the comments had good science supporting them. If you can identify a particular comment you think is not supported by the science, let me know and I will try to provide you with a citation.
For me, the biggest question is whether the recent gentle warming is outside of normal climate variability. Hansen, Jones, Mann and Team all say the temps are higher now than at any time in the last x thousand years. I don't buy it. I do not believe the 1990s were significantly warmer than the 1930s, if any warmer at all. The dust bowl years of the 30s did have bad effects on farming, at least here in the US. And it could happen again, but it will not last. One of the key issues is the temperature record. Adjustments to the temp record appear to me to be unwarranted. Phil Jones will not disclose his data and methods and this lack of openness is known as Pseudoscience. I wrote the initial article on Scientific data archiving.
I hope you will find the time to read some of the research articles I linked to in the Sandbox. I also hope you will look into the debate regarding the pseudoscientific way the Warmers have been conducting themselves. Best wishes. RonCram 00:24, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for engaging in debate. It is going to be a debate, because clearly we're coming from very different sides, but that's never a bad thing, as long as it's all civilised.
Anyway, I have had a quick look at some of the research articles, and I haven't seen anything which would make me change my mind so far. The Medieval Warm Period appears to be a European phenomenon. Similarly, the US may well have been warmer in the 30s than the 90s, that doesn't mean the whole world was. There have been arguments about temperature in the atmosphere (as opposed to on the surface), but they appear to have been resolved, and the atmosphere does appear to be warming quite steadily. The NASA article you link to, admittedly based on a short period of time, specifically states: "The overall trend in the tropospheric data is now +0.08 deg. C/decade (through 2004)." Now sure that's well within normal variation over 25 years, but combined with other data, it seems to reinforce global warming rather than disagree with it. It actually fits perfectly with the statement: "According to the historical temperature record of the last century, the earth's air temperature has risen around one degree Fahrenheit (somewhere between 0.4 and 0.8°C". Attribution of recent climate change The Urban Island argument is also interesting, but less relevant if other measures show rising temperature (which they do).
Again, while I think everyone would recognise the limitations in the models, the fact is that they do model past observations well (see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Climate_Change_Attribution.png). It therefore seems reasonable to assume that they will model the future tolerably well. Or at least, it seems better than rolling a dice to say how much we think temperature is going to go up or down. Economists always get it wrong when predicting the economy, but that doesn't make their predictions worthless. It just means you have to take them with a pinch of salt. In particular, you have to take into account the fact that they are never going to be able to predict abrupt changes. So it may well be the case that the observed warming speeds up or slows down because of some amplified feedback (most would argue speeds up, but no-one's sure). Such step changes will not be shown by current models, which are based on the recently observed past. But to use this as an excuse not to even try to work out what's happening just seems like an abdication of responsibility to me. I mean, if an economist told you he thought the economy was 90% likely to go into recession this year, would you completely ignore him when deciding government policy? Even if you thought he was more likely to be wrong than right, it seems sensible to me to take out some precautions. If a bad weather forecaster predicts rain, it seems sensible to me to carry an umbrella. --Merlinme 18:49, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Copyrighted material

Please do not add links to material posted on other sites in violation of the holder's copyright. For clarification please see WP:EL and WP:C. Thanks. Raymond Arritt 02:13, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Arguing against the notion of anthropogenic global warming makes you a conspiracy theorist?

According to this article you are. Vote to delete this nonsense here. Quite obviously the article violates notability (a few journalist may have classified it as such), NPOV, verifiability (few sources actually concurring with the article), and POV forking. If you wish to disregard those who disagree with you, fine. Labeling them as conspiracy theorists is nonsense. ~ UBeR 05:29, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Break time

Hate to be a spoilsport, but I am going out for a walk. Perhaps we can continue our collaboration later today. Thanks for your attention to the issues of scientific objectivity and editorial neutrality. --Uncle Ed 15:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I'm back, and I made a long comment. I hate to say this, because I don't want to alienate you, but I'd like to take issue with an Edit Summary you wrote:
  • Raymond and Skyemoor, I am not constructing anything. The refusal to supply data and methods so your research can be replicated is pseudoscience. It is plain and simple
On the contrary, I think you are constructing an OR proof that Mann (or his ilk) are guilty of pseudoscience. This is not bad in itself, because if they're guilty Wikipedia should say so. BUT we as contributing editors are not allowed to draw such a conclusion ourselves. This is a disputed point - not only among us editors but also in the world at large.
So I suggest that you and I confine our work to discovering and reporting on "outside writings" which support or deny the idea that 'those guys' have presented pseudoscientific work.
There is a world of difference between (1) partisan, biased writing and (2) neutral writing. It's not easy, but I'd like to help you if you'll let me. --Uncle Ed 14:08, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Ed, nowhere do I say that Mann is guilty of pseudoscience. I am merely saying that data withholding is pseudoscience, a fact that is verifiable from the textbooks I quoted. I also say Mann is guilty of data withholding, another fact that is verifiable from reliable sources. If you do not think Mann is guilty of data withholding, you can say so. I do not tie the two facts together. The article is much larger than the question of how it relates to climate science. I used to be an executive in the pharmaceutical industry. I know how it affects drug development also. This is an important issue. I do wish you would read the whole article. The best version is here. [18] RonCram 14:16, 25 March 2007 (UTC)
Trying to make sense of this . . .
You are saying that data withholding is Pseudoscience. You are also branding Mann as guilty of data withholding. Nonetheless, you are refraining from drawing the conclusion that Mann is therefore guilty of pseudoscience. Do I have this straight?
Ed, yes, you have that correct. I have provided reliable sources saying that data withholding is pseudoscience. I have reliable sources showing Mann refused to provide data. Nowhere does the article say Mann engages in pseudoscience because I do not have reliable source saying that. BTW, I found a reliable source on the involvement of Congress and their request that he provide his source code. I will add the info on the Talk page. RonCram 16:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI Violations?

RonCram, I am trying to get more information to see if it is a Conflict of Intrest violation for an Environmental Activist/Green Party member to be actavly editing pages that have to do with Environmental issues. Your thoughts?--Zeeboid 17:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../r/o/n/User_talk%7ERonCram_d339.html"