User talk:William M. Connolley

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Atmospheric circulation pic 2 Trend estimation with Auto-Correlated Data 3 Linda Hall editor 4 User:Reddi apparently back 5 And to think 6 WP:AN3 7 The Templeton Foundation 8 Improving the models 9 I know I've given you one before, but... 10 Just for amusement 11 stoats again 12 Congrats! 13 Photo of pulpit in Stephansdom in Vienna 14 Energy portal & future selected articles 15 Reverts or other edits 16 Global Warming 17 Glad to have you here 18 To Bdj 19 Your query 20 For your information 21 3RR 22 References in global warming 23 Sulfur/Sulphur 24 Alternate source 25 McK 26 Some interesting data 26.1 Ronald Reagan 26.2 Israel 27 Mediation 28 In defense of the disaster comparison graph 29 User talk:Kim Bruning 30 66.194.104.5 31 Enormousdude 32 Peer review 33 "Gosh you can wriggle. Most unedifying." 34 WP:COIN 35 Freemasonry FAC 36 New redirect to Global Warming page 37 Global Warming 38 3rr 39 Common Cause 40 Did Stern do it on purpose? 41 Regarding recent edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle

[edit] Atmospheric circulation pic

Thanks for the pic you added to this article. It's very interesting, and I am intrigued by some of the anomalies it shows. Denni☯ 01:00, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Hi Denni. Thanks! All part of my very very slow atmospheric dynamics project... more to come... slowly... William M. Connolley 22:09, 24 October 2005 (UTC).

[edit] Trend estimation with Auto-Correlated Data

William: This article you started is a great topic! I am just wondering if you have detailed information to add to the section about auto-correlated data. I am facing this problem now, and am trying to get information from papers and textbooks. --Roland 21:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Ah well, IMHO what to do with auto-correlated data is an ongoing research topic. Top tip: divide the ndof by something like (1+ac1) (or is it ac1^2...) if the autocorr isn't too extreme. There is some formula like (1+ac1^2+ac2^2+...) if its strongly auto-correlated... but... its a bit of a mess, I think. Err, thats why I never expanded that bit. The von Zstorch and Zwiers book covers it, somewhat. William M. Connolley 22:54, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I added a link to autoregressive moving average models JQ 23:17, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Linda Hall editor

User:204.56.7.1 has been blocked four times in the last month for 3RR (once by you). He is now performing wholsale reversions without comment (see at Radio [1]) This user as you probably know, has a long history of refusing to collaborate. He ignored my talk page request. Any suggestions? --Blainster 20:33, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My feeling is that 204. is Reddi. Reddi is limited to 1R per week. Establishing the connection past doubt is difficult; but the edit patterns are very similar. You could post a WP:RFCU. Or you could just list 204. on the 3RR page together with the note of Reddis arbcomm parole and see if that does any good. Or maybe I'll just block it... shall I? Oh go on, yes I will... William M. Connolley 21:37, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

My Reddimeter displays 8.5 on a scale from 0 to 10: Selection of topics. likes patents, likes templates. Only the tireless lamenting on article talk pages is missing. --Pjacobi 21:43, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] User:Reddi apparently back

... with another sockpuppet [2] KarlBunker 19:25, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there no stopping him? I've blocked that one; if he persists, will semi it William M. Connolley 19:28, 10 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And to think

..I knew you when. Why didn't you mention this?

• KNOW IT ALL - Can Wikipedia conquer expertise? KillerChihuahua^?!? 16:38, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear. I did my best with them :-( William M. Connolley 17:31, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WP:AN3

• The few times that I've dabbled in WP:ANI/3RR, I've tried to be fair, but I universally get hit with a barrage of malcontents on my talk page and others that send me threatening e-mails. I don't know why you continue to take care of this for us, but thank you for doing so, as I know that I wouldn't be able to last more than a day at it. Many thanks -- Samir धर्म 14:23, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you :-) William M. Connolley 16:36, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Templeton Foundation

The Templeton Foundation used to provide grants for ID conferences and courses. According to The New York Times, Charles L. Harper Jr., senior vice president at the Templeton Foundation, later asked ID proponents to submit proposals for actual research. "They never came in," said Harper, and that while he was skeptical from the beginning, other foundation officials were initially intrigued and later grew disillusioned. "From the point of view of rigor and intellectual seriousness, the intelligent design people don't come out very well in our world of scientific review," he said. [3] The Templeton Foundation has since rejected the Discovery Institute's entreaties for more funding, Harper states. "They're political - that for us is problematic," and that while Discovery has "always claimed to be focused on the science," "what I see is much more focused on public policy, on public persuasion, on educational advocacy and so forth." [4]

I'd think that while individual members/beneficiaries of the Foundation's largess may embrace ID, the the Foundation itself is trying to distance itself from the ID movement, but keeping in mind that the Discovery Institute, the hub of the ID movement, actively tries to cultivate ambiguity around its own motives, actions and members with the aim of portraying ID as more substantial and more widely accepted than it actually is, as the Dover Trial ruling shows (it's worth reading). [5] FeloniousMonk 21:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Thats interesting and useful William M. Connolley 21:26, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Improving the models

I find this to be a fascinating example of the improvement of weather models over time. Do you happen to know of any comparable quantitative metrics by which climate models can be seen to have improved over time? Dragons flight 07:06, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Nice pic. The one I'm more used to seeing is the length-of-useful-forecast graph, which shows similar improvement. However... no I don't know comparable pics from climate models. The obvious problem would be that you can't do it year-on-year, climate models being far less frequent: the hadley center has arguably only had 3 model incarnations. They do have a "model index" which finds that hadgem1 is better than hadcm3, but I don't know if that was ever applied back to hadcm2, much less to other centres William M. Connolley 13:28, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

when you say 3 models, does that include or exclude improvements in spatial resolution as computing power has improved? Dragons flight 16:48, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

I meant hadcm2, hadcm3 and hadgem1. There are others, but it could get complex. Do you want to include atmos-only models? Those are the "official" releases, sort of. There are various experiments with different spatial res, but its not clear if those were meant to be improvements... William M. Connolley 17:27, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Well at the moment I am just sort of curious about what is being labeled a "model". I could see the term being used to refer to either a set of coupled differential equations (which might then be implemented on a variety of different grid sizes), or to a specific implementation on a specific grid size. Do you ever take your differential systems, and leaving them as is, try to increase the number of grid elements through the use of more powerful computers? Dragons flight 17:40, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes and no. "GCM" means the full set of code, on the whole. Ie, big set of PDEs and params on top. But also, in general, it means a specific config and setup. "hadcm3" means a given code version, plus given ancils (e.g. land sea mask), plus a given resolution. You *can* run it at, say, higher rez; but there is no guarantee that its better. But yes, I know there were various projects with higher rez versions... the problem is that because of the about grid^3-4 dependency, you can't run much higher rez, if the model is anywhere close to state-of-the-art William M. Connolley 22:52, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I know I've given you one before, but...

		The Working Man's Barnstar
		For doing a task that makes me grind my teeth just thinking about it, this star is for you! Syrthiss 22:55, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah well, thanks even more :-) William M. Connolley 09:23, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

)

[edit] Just for amusement

AfDing articles on people can be quite interesting. This one for example: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jules Siegel has written far more in the AfD debate than he ever did in the article he wrote about himself... He may well be notable but... --BozMo talk 20:20, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm well. I don't think I'll vote William M. Connolley 20:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No. But smile perhaps. He probably deserves to stay but the indignation is disproportionate to the point of entertaining--BozMo talk 21:28, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I learnt my lesson at William Connolley a long time ago and now stay away William M. Connolley 21:42, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, yes. BTW I have some nice (low res) pics of the family of baby stoats which live in my garden which I might send you for your blog. They are very playful. --BozMo talk 21:50, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Delightful! I'm very jealous. Do send the pic. In return, I could start a stub about an ex-oilman turned charity exec. Err, or I could *not* start it in exchange... William M. Connolley 21:54, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Not. Okay, I will find some pics/small vid clips) on the other PC and email them, probably tomorrow. As for the threat... I have enough scientific publications to pass WP:BIO and not enough appetite for it to knit a baby gnat's sock "like I want a wart in the middle of my forehead" I think is the expression. We also boast some baby owls, bats in our attic, three varieties of deer, hares, rabbit and badgers in the garden but no pics yet. Glorious Suffolk. --BozMo talk 22:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

okay try http://catesfamily.org.uk/stoats.jpg and then in a couple of minutes stoatsclip.mov from the same place. First is 2M second is 6M. --BozMo talk 23:00, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Cute or what! I'm now insanely jealous. When I blog them, do you want (or unwant) attribution and/or copyright? William M. Connolley 23:07, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Any copyleft with attribution to my homepage would be kind (but I wouldn't insist). I notice Stoat has no picture and will put a cut jpg up there. I think the way that they bounce around in the movie is quite informative and if you can find a way to get that into Wikipedia format you are welcome to aswell. I don't have the tools. --BozMo talk 09:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] stoats again

Aha! The userbox on your userpage has the deleted stoat image in it. You could update the box with the new one. I'd do it if I could work out where these silly boxes live. --BozMo talk 14:38, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Just when I was going to upload that stuff, I find you've done it! Still I've put it into my userbox now. Thanks again William M. Connolley 21:54, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Congrats!

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		for boldly speaking the truth... sbandrews 23:21, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank you. Now I can hit people with it :-) William M. Connolley 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Photo of pulpit in Stephansdom in Vienna

I want to express my appreciation for the photo you uploaded; its shadow and contrast really bring out the relief and allow the user to see it well. I wish all the photos uploaded were as carefully composed. --StanZegel (talk) 20:02, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, thats very kind to stop by so politely. I did take care over the photo - I have very fond memories of that pulpit from a cycle trip in 1986 William M. Connolley 20:10, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Energy portal & future selected articles

GW is our best article. The ones that are more directly relevant to energy are not so good, though some are quite passable - and those are the ones I tend to be less interested in. The ones about future energy use should be most relevant - the SRES scenarios, for example. But that one is a bit thin. We had an "exciting" edit war about peak oil which would potentially be interesting but sadly that didn't lead to improvements in the article, the war being a bit premature William M. Connolley 12:12, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments! I'm thinking that it would be good to have Global Warming to coincide with Live Earth in July. Peak oil deserves to be there too at some point. Gralo 23:18, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts or other edits

I do not mind marking my edits as reverts, when that is what I am doing, but if I am not simply reverting but making my own point, I may not do it. I may also simply forget sometimes. I am not doing it to annoy you, but I will not mark rv every time you believe that I ought to. It's just not gonna happen. Not a matter of being rude or unpleasant, but I have been on wikipedia a while and I mark every edit using my best judgment on how to do so.--Blue Tie 16:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

You should mark as rv anything that counts towards 3RR - that includes partial reverts William M. Connolley 18:04, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Is that a policy on wikipedia that you can cite or is it your personal rule? --Blue Tie 18:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Please stop trolling William M. Connolley 18:46, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

Might be time to protect the page for 24 hours. The changes/reverts are running pretty fast and non of it is adding value to the article... --BozMo talk 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)--BozMo talk 22:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't protect it myself William M. Connolley 08:26, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Not quite sure why. For any reason which would prevent me from doing it next time? --BozMo talk 09:32, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm too heavily involved. You're not, I'd say. Tell you what - unprotect it and then you can block Uber and Blue Tie for 3RR :-) William M. Connolley 10:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR only did three on my count: the edit correcting my error wasn't a revert (and I apologised on his talk page). I also wouldn't block UBeR on principle this time since he once reverted once me in the period and another admin should do it. Blue Tie I agree was 5RR, and none of the reverts were to me but as you say the article is now protected. --BozMo talk 10:51, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Count again: [6], [7], [8], [9] William M. Connolley 10:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay agree. Anyway lets see how a newbie Admin on his third day since election runs the consensus discussion... --BozMo talk 10:59, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Best of luck :-) Does having more people to take on the trolls help? To get rid of trolls you need (a) people prepared to ignore them and (b) people prepared to rm their comments when irrelevant William M. Connolley 11:19, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

One must also consider the possibility that their own certainty about a topic may numb them to the need to move away from 'objectivity' and into the realm of 'neutrality'. If there is a dispute at Wikipedia about whether something "is a fact", shouldn't the article refrain from endorsing any side in that dispute?

Is it trollish or vandalistic to suggest that an article refrain from drawing conclusions about conflicting views; permit all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one; refrain studiously from stating which is better; and to leave reader to form their own opinions?

Anyway, the framers of NPOV didn't think so. --Uncle Ed 13:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I think the issue is one of undue weight. There are people who disagree with all sorts of theories (evolution for example has far more opponents amongst scientists than global warming does). The article should represent the overall size and importance of differing groups. Personally I doubt that things are as cut and dried as the current scientific consensus makes out (because narrow scientific judgement is always myopic; as per Y2K) but I edit Wikipedia to reflect the consensus not my own personal views. --BozMo talk 14:01, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Bozmo (except I don't think the current assessment says things *are* C+D). Ed, you're in danger of trolling here yourself. The talk page of GW is drowning in words; the last thing we need is more philosophical wurbling. It is trolling to go round the same loops again and again. We could also do with fewer black helicopters [10] William M. Connolley 14:11, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Apologies for a tangent, but... BozMo, OOC, what is this scientific consensus on Y2K which you mention? I think I saw you mention it one other time and I'm not sure to what you are referring. --Nethgirb 10:13, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I woz wondering too. I'd blame anything there on the computer folk William M. Connolley 10:29, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

The analogy is not perfect but exists. See Year 2000 problem depending what you remember: in 1998/1999 every relevant expert told everyone disaster was imminent, salaries for IT specialists and the cost of IT systems went through the roof, people were claiming the cost of Y2K was more than that of World War 2. NO ONE said "don't worry". Then the moment arrived and nothing went wrong. One guy in leeds had a credit card refused because the computer thought it was 99 years old. No mid-air aircraft crashes, no auto-launches of Russian missiles, none of the disaster. Was it just that the whole planet was so systematic and careful that every tiny glitch was sorted or was it a huge con? With hindsight I am sure it was mainly a "con" of some sort (cock-up not conspiracy) and it shows that a huge community of specialists can con the wider population. Was it the same kind of consensus: no. Are there other differences: yes its only an analogy. Does it mean that the broad scientific community should take salt with the next scare: yes. --BozMo talk 10:30, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, I think that is rather selective memory and press hyping again. In 1998/99 I already was a relevant expert at least to some degree, and my opinion has always been that things can break, but that it is unclear how many things will break. Of course, most at risk were large old legacy systems, and much of the Y2K work that was done was on exactly these systems. Fixes included such seemingly trivial things as rules about how to interprete two-digit years in various fields (i.e. a system will be broken if 2 digit years are always implicitely prefixed with "19", but the same system with the same behaviour will be fine for its likely lifetime if years<=30 are interpreted as years after 2000).--Stephan Schulz 13:12, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, however you look at it, it wasn't a *scientific* misjudgement William M. Connolley 13:28, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

There aren't such clear edges to what is and isn't science. I am not, I repeat, saying this is the same scenario: but there is a lot of trust involved between experts and the rest of us. --BozMo talk 13:43, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Post hoc? I was sure of the gender of all my children post hoc. I said it was an analogy not a repetition. But for context, young Stephan, in 1998/1999 I was the CEO of a fuels business with $1bn of turnover (3% of the world's acid rain) across 60 countries and recipient of countless audits/customer queries/shareholder enquiries/consultant presentations about the impending doom triggered by every media article... not to mention writing legal letters of reassurance left, right and centre and getting "red traffic lighted" by spotty teenagers who claimed to be experts (not you since I think you were already 30 by then Stephan :) ). There was not even a doubter of the stature of Monckton to be seen writing in the right wing papers. Perhaps the communication between technical and management was imperfect but I can assure you that the level of consensus even when based on very flaky science meant you had to have some character not to hand the vault keys to the IT department. I have managed through about 20 deaths, >$100m liabilities (and been unsuccessfully sued for more than this) but that one was a nasty experience I remember well...No doubt in some ivory towers the concern was less. Where were the deniers then when we needed them? Easy these days when we won't know for a decade.. --BozMo talk 13:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

BozMo, no doubt you had warnings of doom from the media, lawyers, customers, shareholders, consultants, and spotty teenagers who claimed to be experts. But none of those people are scientists. The media, lawyers, consultants, and spotty teenagers all had something to gain, financially, from increased hype. And the customers and shareholders probably had a biased assessment of the risk due to media hype.

"Where were the deniers then when we needed them?" Probably sitting at home, chuckling at the people stocking up on water and canned goods in preparation for Y2K. I think that in general, you need to seek these people out; it's not their job to find you. My opinion at the time was that there were likely bugs that had to be fixed, but all the hype was unwarranted—when aren't there bugs that have to be fixed? Most companies audited their code, fixed the bugs, and had no problem—a straightforward process. I was not an expert at the time but I suspect you would have found a similar opinion had you talked to disinterested experts like CS professors (rather than "the right wing papers" -- no offense, but are you suggesting every bit of hype is due to liberals? :-) ). --Nethgirb 20:45, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Not that simple: most code was unauditable, poorly commented and got replaced. My ring-wing comment was a dig at Monckton/torygraph who can attack GW now because they are fairly safe of consequence. I repeat "scientist" is not a clear cut thing (see [11] for my thoughts on this). Plenty of the IT people called themselves computer scientists. In the UK there used to be a distinction with tenured academics who were reasonably independently minded but even that is going. And did I talk to CS professors? Sure, I was living in Cambridge back then. They were all delighted by the new found prominence of their expertise and as hypey as anyone else. There is an element of interest in most climatology experts in GW being "bad": personally I don't doubt their integrity but it is an interest nonetheless. --BozMo talk 13:30, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

You have a point; I shouldn't have suggested that professors would be entirely disinterested. If you say they predicted disaster, then I am surprised; if they said that it was a real problem that had to be fixed or else there could be major problems, then that makes sense. --Nethgirb 19:02, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

And you are also right to underline it isn't identical to GW, only an analogy. For Y2K most academics only said there was a risk (that's enough to cause a big headache). Small risk of big downside is a serious problem for companies with deep pockets. --BozMo talk 19:06, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

There is an element of interest in most climatology experts in GW being "bad": personally I don't doubt their integrity but it is an interest nonetheless - FWIW, I somewhat agree. You'll notice that I have edited on wiki to tone down excess enthusiasm of the "consequences" sort. Whenever I give public talks I emphasise that the "consequences" bit is the weakest part of the consensus. At the moment the public debate (as exemplified by our recent edit war) is - fruitlessly - stuck on are-we-doing-it, which is effectively settled (we are). Far more interesting, potentially, is what-will-happen. You could argue that WWH is more the preserve of bios and econs than climate scientists; perhaps the CS are benefitting from the septics desperately keeping the battle on our territory. *Thats* why the AR4 spm was released on a friday :-) William M. Connolley 13:38, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, I cringe at the "we're all gonna die" stuff, as do my colleagues. I suspect that it helps to sell newspapers, though, which is why so many in the public think that it's part of the scientific consensus. Raymond Arritt 19:16, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I respect that. Also on a lighter note as a former mathematician I cannot help pointing out that statistics do not support the claim that "we are all going to die". Specifically only 85% of people die as 15% of people have not died; or put another way 15% of the entire human race who have ever lived are currently still alive on the planet. Exponentials can be frightening. --BozMo talk 19:29, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Glad to have you here

With all the disinformation around, it's nice to know that there are a few scientists here on WP who aren't willing to parrot whatever their corporate masters send in a memo. Be well and to the extent that it even matters, know that you have the respect of a lot of us! :) -- User:RyanFreisling @ 14:44, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks. It *is* nice to know that occaisionally :-) William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Let me second Ryan's statement - I find it very reassuring to have you around on the climatology articles. Raul654 19:51, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I hope you don't feel like taking it back after I hack Inhofe... William M. Connolley 20:01, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] To Bdj

Can you give an outsider who's been pretty much frustrated to the point of leaving the page a quick-and-dirty as to why the page on Global warming dedicates less than a dozen words to the highly publicised controversies surrounding the science? --badlydrawnjeff talk 15:02, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I think I can. Firstly, this page is primarily about the *science* over GW - not the politics or press. Hence, it tries to give a balance of the science, not the press coverage. If you're basing your expectations on the latter, you'll be disappointed.

Secondly, what do we have? there are a few scientists who disagree about the primary causes of the observed warming and A hotly contested political and public debate also has yet to be resolved, regarding whether anything should be done, and what could be cost-effectively done to reduce or reverse future warming, or to deal with the expected consequences and Contrasting with this view, other hypotheses have been proposed to explain all or most of the observed increase in global temperatures, including: the warming is within the range of natural variation; the warming is a consequence of coming out of a prior cool period, namely the Little Ice Age; and the warming is primarily a result of variances in solar radiation. and There is a controversy over whether present trends are anthropogenic. For a discussion of the controversy, see global warming controversy. . And a whole section on solar variation. So I guess your "less than a dozen" is meant rhetorically.

Thirdly, what controversies are you expecting? Solar is in there; HSC isn't (and maybe should be touched on, though its not all that relevant).

Fourthly... its just about impossible to talk about this on t:GW while everyone is wasting time rehashing old arguments about "consensus" and sourcing William M. Connolley 17:25, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Okay. That makes sense about the science, although it would be nice to see a better cross-section of the interpretations. Regarding your "fourth," it's why I just cut to you. Thanks for the straight answer. --badlydrawnjeff talk 00:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your query

Hi William, it's correct that we're not supposed to use wikis as sources (except in very limited circumstances, namely in the same way we'd use any self-published source), but I don't see how that would apply to the instrumental temperature record. We're allowed to use any primary, secondary, or tertiary source that's reliable. I don't know what kind of source the ITR is, but it seems to me something we ought to be using. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:30, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

What we are talking about here is to not repeat references already contained in sub-articles. I.e. when referencing the instrumental temperature record in global warming, it should be sufficient to Wikilink there, not to repeat the references over and over again. --Stephan Schulz 18:39, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

It would depend on the context. It's almost always better to repeat the references, unless the material is completely uncontentious, in which case you could simply link to the Wikipedia article and anyone who wants to know more can read that. But if the claims are "challenged or likely to be challenged," as the policy says, then it's better to supply citations even if they've been repeated elsewhere. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 18:46, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how that is compatible with your original reply, sorry. How can we cite ITR in this way if tertiary sources are forbidden? WP:OR sez Tertiary sources are publications, such as encyclopedias, that sum up other secondary sources, and sometimes primary sources. Wikipedia is a tertiary source... All articles on Wikipedia should be based on information collected from published primary and secondary sources... Although most articles should rely predominantly on secondary sources, there are rare occasions when they may rely entirely on primary sources (for example, current events or legal cases). This, as written, would appear to imply that tertiary sources are forbidden. I would suggest that it needs to be re-written. William M. Connolley 18:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, I don't see how this can work with WP:SUMMARY. For complex topics, it's easily possible to go multiple levels of recursion. Repeating all references will destroy the whole idea of using summaries. --Stephan Schulz 19:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree, though the wikilawyers would tell you thats only a guideline :-). It points you are History of the Yosemite area, which indeed is woefully unreferenced, by the absurd standards some are pushing. So I think WP:OR is miswritten, and needs revision William M. Connolley 19:20, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I would need to see the specific example to understand what the issue is. But generally, tertiary sources are allowed if they're high quality; the Encyclopaedia Britannica, for example, would be allowed. The secondary/tertiary distinction can be a bit of a red herring that's best ignored: what matters is whether the source is a good one, and whether it's used correctly in the article. As for summary style, you summarize the contents of another article, but in summarizing, you presumably make a couple of claims, so these particular claims should be sourced. That doesn't mean you have to repeat every single source that's in the main article — just sources for the particular claims you're repeating. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 19:50, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, thats what I would have thought. But I don't see how this is compatible with a literal reading of the OR policy, as quoted above. Its all very well to agree in friendly discussion with you that the policy is a red herring... but its not pleasant to have the policy quoted in unfriendly edit wars. If you want an example, then consider: For example, I could just write "John Adams was born in 1735," and leave it at that because that Wikipedia article SAYS he was born in 1735 SO IT MUST BE TRUE! Wrong. That is not how Wikipedia works, I'm afraid. Wikipedia is a tertiary source. How does that sound to you? William M. Connolley 19:57, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, fair point, the policy needs to be tweaked. At the moment, there's a discussion about whether V and NOR are to be merged into ATT, so I hope we can leave any tweaking until after that's decided. Cheers, SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:24, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure its a good idea to leave it, otherwise we'll get edits like this being done on the basis of over-zealous interpretation of the current policy William M. Connolley 22:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Are you arguing the article adequately cites it sources? ~ UBeR 22:48, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

When an article achieves FA status, the adequacy of sourcing is a major criteria. The article passed that hurdle a little while back and the quantity and quality of citations have improved even after that. Are there areas that could be improved? No doubt, but overall the article is adequately sourced and the current round of nitpicking is not helping to improve the article. Vsmith 01:00, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] For your information

I've just removed from WP:AIV a bad faith report placed by UBeR which accused you of vandalising History of the Yosemite area‎. Sam Blacketer 22:40, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

That's a shame because "do not remove them unless you are sure that all stated reasons for the dispute are settled. As a general rule, do not remove other people's dispute tags twice during a 24 hour period" seems to be pretty clear to me. Shame on you for not assuming good faith. Are you so naive to think an administrator cannot possibly break a rule? I asked you to ignore that and actually look at the edits. How unfortunate. ~ UBeR 22:49, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

UBeR, William M. Connolley had not edited History of the Yosemite area since 09:00 this morning when you made the report at 22:36. I did look at his edits and your report was demonstrably not made in good faith. Sam Blacketer 22:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Uber knows full well this is not vandalism but a dispute over policy William M. Connolley 22:58, 28 March 2007 (UTC). But it does look like he has learnt from his error: compare [12] to [13] William M. Connolley 23:00, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

I don't understand. The anonymous user in question reverted it three times. If the rule does not ban three reverts, why is it called the Three Revert Rule? Did you actually look at the history of the article in question and follow up on the complaint, or just read the entry? XINOPH | TALK 19:26, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Because you are allowed 3 reverts and are in trouble with the fourth. --Stephan Schulz 20:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] References in global warming

Hi William, we seem to disagree about the usefulness (if not the necessity) of extra references in global warming. Anyways, if you remove them, please make sure that you either remove all occurrences of a named reference, or none. Otherwise you leave later references to the same name dangling. --13:49, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Stephan. Sorry we disagree on this. I doubt I'll go to the stake on this. I thought this was part of the straw poll. But as you know - I don't like the ref system - if it breaks down when you take out a ref, thats its fault not mine (in fact I don't really know what you mean by this so I'm guessing) William M. Connolley 21:37, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the references are not neccesarry from a sourcing point of view. But if it keeps us from having to refight this particular battle over and over again, having a few superscripts hanging around is well worth it. Even UBeR defends the now current compromise version. As for the refs: I know your opinion. Time has passed you by ;-). One great thing is that refs can be reused (i.e. you define them once, and then use them over and over again). That saves typing and improves consistency and quality of the references. But of course, if you delete the one definition, the other occurrences break. And remember: We all have to agree in every detail, all the time!--Stephan Schulz 22:09, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Time has passed me by... I fear so. But the deal for those that like the new refs has to be, that if people who don't use them break them, then the ref-likers have to fix them (the old system was simpler: the new system would be an intolerable burden on new contributors if rigorously enforced) William M. Connolley 22:12, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Using the full {{cite XXX}} template, yes. But adding a simple hyperlink is not much more difficult than before.--Stephan Schulz 22:19, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes. But the same applies to removing links. I still don't know what I did wrong William M. Connolley 22:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't worry about it. As long as the substance is there, someone will fix the formatting eventually. Save your time and energy for bigger issues. Raymond Arritt 22:26, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Here is an example: Muller claims X^[1] and Y^[1]. In the source: Muller claims X<ref name="muller2001">Muller, 2001: Very valuable full citation with all the right information and hyperlinks.</ref> and Y<ref name="muller2001"/>. Notice how the second reference has no details, it just reuses the first. Also see the two back-links in the references (a,b) that tell you that this is referenced twice. You deleted the full version. --Stephan Schulz 22:38, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

1. ^ ^{a b} Muller, 2001: Very valuable full citation with all the right information and hyperlinks.

[edit] Sulfur/Sulphur

According to Sulfur#Spelling the Royal Society of Chemistry adopted the spelling sulfur in 1990. Like to change sulphate back? --BozMo talk 21:53, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything new to say on this since march? Talk:Global_warming/Archive_19#Sul.28ph.7Cf.29ate William M. Connolley 21:57, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As far as I can see that discussion concludes go with "F". The article should be BE but both are now correct in BE with a preference for "F". I think you shouldn't have taken the "F" off? --BozMo talk 22:00, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

PS our female stoat has just reappeared so I am hoping she has a new litter. --BozMo talk 22:01, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

My best wishes for the stoat. But not for the "f". That discussion ended in statis. You want to reopen it, please do, but my arguments are the same: IUPAC applies to chemistry, which this isn't; in climate science its ph (certainly was in the TAR; the ar4 SPM uses neither but if they change to f in the report I'll change my views) William M. Connolley 22:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Understandably, being a Briton, you would like to use British English. However, the entire global warming article is written in American English, and American English uses "sulfate," as does the does the rest of the international community adhering to IUPAC (Royal Society, anyone?). The term originated from the Latin sulfur. There's no reason to be defiant against the majority opinion that it should be written correctly. ~ UBeR 23:28, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Be careful UBeR, many people object to "Briton" in favour of English, Scottish etc. :) William, Clearly I was brought up on "ph" too, and "f" jars. There are places where the BE/AE is very blurred "ise" versus "ize" being an obvious one (Cambridge University Press has always used ize since before anyone in the US could spell "Klu Klux Klan"). Now, both are good British English. With the new 2007 Wikipedia CD Selection I am planning on going with "f" mainly cos UK schools have now followed the Royal Society and we are becoming dinosaurs. I didn't revert you and won't but perhaps this is one to demonstrate your statesmanship. --BozMo talk 06:16, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I seems to me that nothing much has changed William M. Connolley 09:33, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Alternate source

Do you have any other sources for the forged graphs and other malarkey in TGGWS? As you know, Team Skeptic is making a big deal over using RC -- the real point, of course, being to score one against you personally. I'd rather just cite another source and be done with it (until they pick their next fight). If the RC source was picked up by another media outlet we could use that instead. Yeah, I know it's all silly, but... Raymond Arritt 20:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure re the graphs. But I am sure that compromising with the fools is a bad idea - why pander to them? William M. Connolley 20:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Because I'm getting old and lazy. That's my excuse and I'm staying with it. Raymond Arritt 21:15, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

All that is needed for the triumph of evil... William M. Connolley 21:28, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] McK

Generally, "see talk" means look in the talk/discussion page because the explanation of the changes would be too long to place in the edit window. And again "it didn't" does not constitute an argument. Perhaps I am misunderstanding the exact details (and please, if so correct me in a logical manner) but from what I have read, McK stated that Mann made an error, Mann corrected some of those errors and claimed that the errors did not effect his results, McK then took question with that. However, as Mann's graph was a product of numbers and in any equation even the slightest error will alter the results, it cannot logically follow that Mann's results were perfectly the same. The question then becomes one of degree; Mann is not claiming that the errors didn't change anything, but rather that the errors were so minor as to not affect the end result data in a significant manner. McK, on the other hand, attempted to argue that, indeed, the end variance was significant. Therefore, while Mann's claim that the error was not significant may hold as much weight as his original research, until such time as peer-review issues (though perhaps one can't call an economists review of other sciences peer) are resolved, it is irresponsible to state as fact (indeed, it is irresponsible to talk of science as facts in general, but that is another issue altogether).

Your reasoning for Nature is certainly much more persuasive, but as I mentioned on the talk page, articles "in submission" and "in review" are quite legitimate categories for various documents like CVs and Biosketches. There is an academic difference between articles "in review," which McK basically claimed his article was, and those flat out rejected. Perhaps saying that the article was cut due to length concerns is giving too much credence; however "rejected" is a tad too far in the other direction. Thought 22:25, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You don't really seem to be up on the situation. McKs submission is over - look at the dates. There is no question of it being still in review - its rejected. As for the corrigendum, again you don't seem to know what its about. It corrected a misdescription of datasets. *Therefore* it didn't change the results. Mann is indeed saying that the corrigendum didn't change *anything* in the results. Where did you get your "but rather that the errors were so minor as to not affect the end result data in a significant manner". This is certainly *not* what Mann is saying William M. Connolley 07:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly you are well aware of the difference between an article flat out rejected and one reviewed then rejected (regardless of when it was rejected), but as you are also better suited at judging the particular weight of such things in the field in question, and since the point was quite minor to begin with, and since the information is still quite readily available via citation, I will happily yield the point.

As for the corrigendum, certainly I must be missing something. Mann states quite clearly in Nature that some data had been mistakenly included and other mistakenly excluded. With a change of input, one should reasonably expect a change of output. Such a statement is in line with the conclusion of National Research Council's Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate's report ("statistical shortcomings in the MBH analysis, but... small in effect"), as well as the Wegman Report. This is not to say that the change of output necessitate an alteration of the conclusion drawn from that output, but that a change did occur. As such, I find your statement that "as far as I can tell the corrigendum doesn't affect the results because... it didn't" odd since 2 out of 3 of Mann's statements in the corrigendum indicate the opposite, as do two reports on the matter, as well as MM. Perhaps you might be willing to point out where the discrepancy is?

Mann states quite clearly in Nature that some data had been mistakenly included and other mistakenly excluded - thats not what I understand. I thought that the only change was to the description of the datasets. Can you quote which bit you mean? The thing itself is here William M. Connolley 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

1st paragaph of the corrigendum (pg 10), "It has been drawn to our attention (S. McIntyre and R. McKitrick) that the listing of the ‘proxy’ data set in the Supplementary Information published with this Article contained several errors. In Table 1 we provide a list of the records that were either mistakenly included in the Supplementary Information, or mistakenly left out." Am I misjudging the actual applicability of this information? Thought 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

The "Supplementary Information" is the description of the data sets, not the data sets actually used. So the description of the data sets has been updated, not the data itself.--Stephan Schulz 19:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

On one final note, your statement, "had the results changed, Nature would have noted that," is so out of sync with my understanding of the peer-review process that I hope you will tolerate my attempts to clear the matter in my own mind. To my understanding, a researcher submits an article for publication, at which point it considered, sent to reviewers, and ideally eventually published. At which point does Nature (or any academic journal) run the experiments contained in such an article so as to be in a position to judge (let alone note) when an alteration to the data does and does not affect results? I must confess, it has been my experience and belief that such a task is not shouldered by the journal but rather other researchers. Thought 17:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, journals do not re-run results. But if someone publishes a corrigendum stating that None of these errors affect our previously published results. I think we can assume Nature accepts that William M. Connolley 18:11, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Some interesting data

I was playing around with a script I recently wrote, to fetch and analyze article histories, to see who the most prolific editors for a given article are. Here's the results for Global warming:

hydra[45] [~/]> get_hist --summarize --threshold=20 "Global warming"

Fetching Global warming

William_M._Connolley 777

UBeR 333

Stephan_Schulz 264

Raymond_arritt 233

Ed_Poor 221

Dragons_flight 197

Silverback 157

Vsmith 153

Cortonin 120

Guettarda 110

Raul654 95

Natalinasmpf 86

JonGwynne 83

Thejackhmr 79

Tawkerbot2 67

Count_Iblis 66

Rd232 65

Poodleboy 61

SEWilco 60

Lesikar 59

TeaDrinker 55

Judgesurreal777 55

Bikeable 54

Aude 51

Alhutch 50

EWS23 48

AntiVandalBot 48

Omicronpersei8 45

Nrcprm2026 45

Antandrus 41

Richardshusr 38

Hardern 38

Blue_Tie 37

Atlant 37

Viriditas 36

LordsReform 34

KimDabelsteinPetersen 33

JoshuaZ 33

Anastrophe-wikipedia 33

BozMo 32

Spiffy_sperry 31

NHSavage 31

Denorris 28

Brusegadi 25

Michael_Johnson 24

JohnDziak 24

Graft 24

217.23.232.194 24

TheOuthouseMouse 23

Narssarssuaq 23

Tjsynkral 22

SirGrant 22

RexNL 21

Haseler 21

Wiki_alf 20

Skyemoor 20

Peter_Andersen 20

MrRedact 20

This article has been edited 10839 times

To put that 10k edits into perspective - that's by far the most I've seen - twice as many as the second largest I've encountered. Raul654 05:43, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Try Israel or Ronald Reagan which must be pretty close to this. --BozMo talk 07:51, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

They're close, but still lag behind. Raul654 08:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Ronald Reagan

hydra[32] [~/]> get_hist --summarize --max=20 --wikify "Ronald Reagan" Fetching Ronald Reagan

• Happyme22 555
• Rjensen 180
• SNIyer1 172
• SNIyer12 119
• Jpgordon 95
• Flcelloguy 73
• Ellsworth 72
• Kaisershatner 62
• 162.96.105.78 56
• Smokingmaenad 52
• Jiang 50
• Texture 49
• 68.96.76.118 48
• Accurizer 42
• Griot 39
• RexNL 34
• RJII 34
• Mytwocents 32
• JackofOz 32
• Commodore_Sloat 30

This article has been edited 9321 times

[edit] Israel

hydra[33] [~/]> get_hist --summarize --max=20 --wikify "Israel" Fetching Israel

• Jayjg 239
• Amoruso 167
• Tasc 166
• Humus_sapiens 138
• Jpgordon 111
• Okedem 89
• Gidonb 89
• Zero0000 81
• El_C 74
• 24.150.168.211 74
• Shamir1 70
• Schrodingers_Mongoose 70
• Doron 66
• Ynhockey 62
• Garzo 58
• 209.135.35.83 52
• GabrielF 50
• Guy_Montag 49
• Sarastro777 48
• Daniel575 48

This article has been edited 9267 times

[edit] Mediation

Would you say that [14] effectively rules out Bruning as a mediator? --BozMo talk 08:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily - BT is wrong about many things... but unless KB does something to stamp out the PA I'm out of that page - no great loss, as its going nowhere anyway William M. Connolley 08:38, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't typically use the medcab pages for discussions anyway, so I'll close the discussion on that page entirely. People aren't making any further useful comments there anyway.

I'll just keep an eye on Global Warming and maybe manage to improve the s/n ratio slightly. (too much on my plate to do much more atm, I'm afraid).

Note that I'm an "informal mediator", and as such, people do ask for mediation on my talk page, or per e-mail or irc. Just because someone asks me to look into a situation doesn't make me their advocate though! Like I also said on the medcab page, it's up to you if you'd like to speak with me or not. (And at the moment I have no time to speak with everyone anyway :-/ ). --Kim Bruning 11:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] In defense of the disaster comparison graph

Do you know of good published extrapolations of climate change costs? I thought we agreed that the textual ones which have since migrated out of global warming were the best. I want to add those back in, along with the 2004 graph which you removed without explanation.

Why wouldn't comparing the number of weather disasters to the number of earthquakes be exactly the right way to look at the reporting effects of increases in population, building, and industrialization? Do you know of a better way to present that ratio data?

What do you think of the Dragons Flight graphic showing the extrapolation of hurricane distributions by central pressure, given the present and "220% CO2"? Do you think that kind of modeling is appropriate for a general interest encyclopedia? James S. 09:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know of a good graph - all I know (from RP) is that most of the increase is not weather//cliamte related. Weather/earthquakes - can you point me to the discussion. DF graphic - which do you mean? William M. Connolley 09:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

What is RP? The DF graphic I mean is Image:Hurricane Intensity Shift.png which seems far more extrapolationist to me than any graph I've ever created or proposed. Why 220%? James S. 09:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Roger Pielke (Jr). The DF graph is simply a reproduction of something from the P-R lit; I've seen the original elsewhere. So its perfectly OK. It could still be misused, of course - do you think it has been?

Earthquakes are hard to mis. Nonetheless there has been an upward trend. Its not clear that the ratio of the two is a useful measure. William M. Connolley 09:31, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Why would a general interest encyclopedia want to show a central-pressure storm extrapolation for some arbitrary 220% figure? How is that more "OK" than producing the best fit to published data with deg. of freedom-adjusted R² above 0.95? I have replaced some of the financial effects, and I want to put this graph back, too. James S. 10:16, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I can think of many reasons to include it. And if you don't understand the difference between that and OR, you need to... re-read the vast extensive talk pages on it. Please don't try to go through it all again William M. Connolley 10:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No, I know to choose my battles, but I am still convinced showing a trend line is not OR, as long as its confidence interval is also shown. We will have to agree to disagree about that, and I will refrain from adding such trend lines and confidence intervals.

However, because the disaster comparison graph would be useful, tangible, and clear to a typical reader, but the theoretical extrapolation of storm central pressures under some hypothetical 220% CO2 situation would not, I am going to replace the comparison graph. If you want to remove it, would you please seek opinions first, and if you do remove it, would you please state your reasons for removing it either on the talk page or in an edit summary?

Because you did not answer this question, again I ask, why wouldn't comparing the number of weather disasters to the number of earthquakes be exactly the right way to look at the reporting effects of increases in population, building, and industrialization? James S. 10:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I thought I did answer it. The answer is: I'm no expert on that; but global sensing of earthquakes is fairly easy and has been for some time. Thats not true of weather disasters William M. Connolley 10:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The other reason is that people are increasingly moving into regions where extreme weather events are likely (like all the snow birds in Florida), but I'm not aware of any such shift towards earthquake regions. --Stephan Schulz 10:49, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Good points, but shouldn't we be more worried about presenting correct information than the risk that people won't understand all the nuances of its context? I hope you agree that the main global warming article should have a subsection on financial effects. My reasons for adding it are:

• There is an abundance of prestigious secondary and primary sources on the subject;
• It is of enormous interest to the causal reader;
• It is of profound importance to society at large;
• It is a frequent subject of debate; and
• I was able to attribute essentially every statement I added.

Whether or not you agree with all those reasons, do you agree that the financial effects section is worth including? James S. 10:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think a short note and a {{seemain|Effects of global warming}} would be more appropriate. So far, the article mostly focusses on what global warming is. It is very long already, and hard to keep coherent without introducing additional, long discussions from very different fields. --Stephan Schulz 11:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

There are multiple fields involved: truth, money, climate science, actuarial science, etc. Is there a reason why global warming should be limited to a subset? Encyclopedic content tends toward the Cartesian product (sparsely stored) and not towards a Gazetteer. James S. 11:41, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The article "is very long already, and hard to keep coherent". Moreover, there is a more specialized article for just this topic. --Stephan Schulz 12:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I recommend not allowing the nay-sayers silly neologisms like "Holywoodization" without full disclosure of best published financial estimates. If you still feel like removing the finance section, how about merging it with the previous section? That could be done chronologically or by the existing order of the previous section. James S. 19:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Related to this discussion, I would call people attention to: Talk:Effects of global warming#Risks and Impacts Figure, which I still view as having unresolved issues. Dragons flight 19:18, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

I think perhaps this discussion should be brought to Talk:global warming. Additionally, if I may, the article is already very long, as someone else stated. Important subjects should be summarized. The more detailed information should be in their respective articles. Moreover, as many are keen to point out in dissent of adding other topics, this is an article on the science of global warming, whether it ought to be or not. ~ UBeR 20:06, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] User talk:Kim Bruning

So will you now correct your own spelling mistakes over there, dear William? Extremely sexy 11:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No. It's not necessary in talk space. And one of your corrections was wrong anyway. William M. Connolley 11:15, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Exactly which one are you referring to? Extremely sexy 11:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

The second - I had meant in that case one particular PA. But on second thoughts I agree - it could have been many. William M. Connolley 11:21, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

But if you check my correction again, you can see that I only corrected the verb form, which was indeed wrong, since it should be "gets" instead of "get". Extremely sexy 11:26, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes - and I got it the wrong way round - you changed it to singular whereas I meant plural. And - having indicated that I don't like these things changed, please don't do it here. William M. Connolley 11:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Understood, my friend. Extremely sexy 11:37, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 66.194.104.5

66.194.104.5 (whom you've marked as a suspect sockpuppet of Licorne) appears to be having some civility issues:

• [15]
• [16]

—SlamDiego 17:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

(I'm noting this also to Fastfission.) —SlamDiego 19:11, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm. We he did alter the fu fairly soon after to something sensible. Um. I'll leave it to FF William M. Connolley 08:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Enormousdude

William - Can you take a look at the edits for Enormousdude? On special relativity his edits are very POV and are regularly reverted. Loooking at the contributions here, I am getting a sense that he is on some kind of campaign here of just imposing his POV wherever he things it belongs. His edits are not sourced, and are often controversial. --EMS | Talk 20:13, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

Hmm... well I agree with you as to the content (though your expertise here is so much greater that my opinion isn't worth much). But he seems to be well below 3RR, so its not clear what to do, except keep reverting him. It could be WP:POINT I suppose William M. Connolley 08:31, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Peer review

Do you have evidence that the World Bank does or does not review their reports in production? James S. 12:12, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

"Peer review" can have slightly different meanings, depending upon the context. In its most general sense, it means that a product is examined by persons having similar skills as the producer. In the world of professional/academic journals, it means that the journal convenes (physically or virtually) a group of peers to assess the merit of publishing a particular work. What I believe William is referring to is the lack of such a journal based process for the Stern Review article under question, even if the WB performed its own internal peer review. --Skyemoor 13:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I may be mising something here... but the SR was not a world bank production. Why would the WB have reviewed it? However, this is somewhat besides the point, which is N's smokescreen for not having read Tol/Nordhaus William M. Connolley 18:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Regarding your "ignorance or bias" comment, have you considered the possibility that the reason none of the discount rate critiques have made it past peer review is because they are nutty? James S. 21:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't know why you're continually repeating "peer review" - its not the standard for inclusion on wiki, and if it was we'd have to reject Stern. Is Nordhaus nutty? No. Did you know about Nordhaus before writing the text you added? You don't say (come on: say it: yes or no?) William M. Connolley 21:49, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

It's not the standard for inclusion. It is the standard for disregarding contradictory self-published work, without a compelling reason not to. What compelling reasons are there to believe that recurring costs need to be inflation-adjusted? Non-nutty people often write nutty things. No, I've never heard of Nordhaus before you asked me to read his nutty critiques of Stern. James S. 21:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

You appear to think you can dismiss Norhaus's critique just by calling it nutty. In your own head, you can. On wiki, you can't. See t:GW for the P-R Tol, BTW William M. Connolley 22:02, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

The discount rate question was addressed in the "huge" six paragraph FAQ answer you saw. James S. 22:46, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Stern can post as many FAQs as he likes, he isn't convincing the vast majority of economists who simply don't accept his values William M. Connolley 10:21, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Gosh you can wriggle. Most unedifying."

Do you believe that the rules about personal attacks should apply to you? James S. 22:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Certainly. I think you're being rather thin-skinned, but I'll withdraw it William M. Connolley 22:47, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm upset also because you seem too kind to people influenced by e.g. segments of the U.S. government who have repeatedly been exposed in flagrant ethics violations by suppressing climate change information, as well as those funded by the well-documented millions in public relations agency-produced "science" from oil companies. It seems like you and your colleagues don't try to balance their subterfuge and astroturf in proportion to the extent that it influences public discourse. Maybe you think it is ethical to take everything at face value even in the face of repeated evidence of fraud, but I do not. James S. 22:53, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Now I haven't got a clue what you're talking about. You mean the criticism of Stern? You think Nordhaus or Tol are astroturf? I don't understand William M. Connolley 22:56, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Knutson is a good example. Another one in the U.S. we have going on is politicians advocating, often in response to climate change concerns, for the use of ethanol in automobile fuels, which will drive up food prices globally and do nothing to reduce greenhouse gases. "Biofuels" is the name often used for this kind of thing. The skepticism is directed from above, by the production of biased documentaries (e.g. the Channel 4 thing recently) and faxes filled with talking points. Ordinary people see those things and think Al Gore must be full of it, because he's a politician or because they are told by some energy industry CEO, and then decide to go on a personal crusade to downplay. A lot of them end up here.

Anyway, I'm really glad that you found the Stern report critiques from December, and I hope that their texts actually present corrections to his formulas instead of merely claiming that his formulas are wrong. Where I come from, failing to make a prediction is a failure to advance a hypothesis. However, I have to say I don't see much hope. The first one starts out complaining about the lack of emphasis on uncertainty, which is valid but doesn't affect the outcome. If I think my rainfall is going to increase 10%, then I should plan for that whether the 95% confidence interval is 9%-11% or 5%-20%. [edit: of course the outcome distribution effects the expected cost because it the distribution isn't symmetrical around the mean] Also, the abstracts don't suggest at all that any constructive revisions to Stern's formulas were made; they're just a laundry list of objections (some of which I want to read in detail.) Maybe I'll go to the library today. James S. 23:20, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Figures 1 and 3 in Tol and Yohe are particularly good. They seem completely in line with recent upward revisions of temperature predictions. That actually supports the Stern Review. All of the arguments in issue 4 of the 2006 World Economics seem completely oblivious to this. --James S. 171.64.128.214 04:54, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What upward revision in T preds? I'm unaware of any William M. Connolley 10:20, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

All of the "previous studies" which Stern's critics cite are prior to 2004.[17] James S. 16:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Nonsense. [18] has no upward revision in it. The ar4 preds are essentially the same as the TAR. There is no upwards revision. Please quote exact text, and not from usatoday William M. Connolley 19:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Do you have access to a year-to-year table of the mean projections? I've read over and over that they have been increasing. That's actually an Associated Press article. I note the EPI article states, "even at the lowest projected temperature increases, climate change models predict more frequent and more severe storms, floods, heat waves, and droughts." James S. 19:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Repeat after me: I must not believe everything I read in the press. There is no increase in predictions. Journalists make things up all the time William M. Connolley 20:00, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Can you prove it, please? James S. 20:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What, that you shouldn't believe all you red in the press? Be serious. Or that ar4 ~ tar? just read it. Thankfully you've taken the junk out of the figure caption so I hope that means you don't believe it any more either William M. Connolley 20:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Would you please link to the relevant sections of the assessment reports? James S. 20:28, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

SPM for both. Please don't expect to be spoon-fed William M. Connolley 20:30, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

What is SPM? Perhaps your expertise makes it quick and easy for you to provide years for some of the eight estimates on Image:Global Warming Predictions.png? James S. 21:58, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a wiki, you silly person. If you don't know what SPM is, look it up William M. Connolley 22:13, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COIN

If you've been watching this thread you're aware that I've blocked two of the participants for a week for meatpuppetry and WP:POINT. Per this post by RonCram[19] I have a couple of questions for you. I've read the edit histories and talk pages for Scientific data archiving and Scientific data withholding and I'm unclear on a couple of points.

• RonCram identifies diffs where you deleted a paragraph about Michael Mann. He claims that you did so in violation of WP:COI in order to defend a colleague's reputation and points to the RealClimate website where you and Mann both publish as evidence.

• If I follow your edit summaries and talk page posts correctly, you call the section a POV attack against a particular scientist and tangential to the main subject of either article.

I'll set out my understanding. I've rejected arguments for COI that rest solely on the basis that you and Mann publish in the same venue or that attempt to construct COI out of online notes you've taken when analyzing Mann's work: these appear to be normal and unremarkable for two experts on any specialized topic. The reasons you provided for this particular nomination appear to provide a full and sound basis for AFD.

I've offered to your critics that I would consider potential evidence of COI if, for example, they were to demonstrate that you and Mann had coauthored papers in peer reviewed journals or if either of you exercised editorial control over the other's work at the RealClimate site. So far no such evidence has been forthcoming and up until now my tentative opinion had been that if you had coauthored a paper or two together I would leave you a polite note asking you to avoid an appearance of impropriety and let others nominate an article for deletion if it discussed Mann.

Two things from Ron's new post and my subsequent reading lead me to request clarification. His diffs do indicate that you took particular interest in the paragraph about Mann, which lends some degree of credence to Ron's assertions, and your own responses about the attack nature of the paragraphs are obtuse to a nonexpert such as myself. Please explain. Durova^Charge! 02:09, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have never co-authored a paper with Mann in a PR journal. We are both members of RC and have on occaision worked on posts together. I have been interested in the MBH stuff long before RC was formed, however... can't find a good proof of that but maybe [20].

I did indeed delete the para on Mann, e.g. [21] on the grounds that it was little but an attack. The background is that Steve McIntyre, who runs climateaudit, has spent a lot of time attacking Mann on this, and the matter has become very bitter. All RonCs sources (for the important bits) are from climateaudit. The entire section is written from the CA POV; there is no attempt at balance. Nor did RonC ever attempt to balance it - he just kept reverting it back in. The bizarre Juckes para at the bottom is even more obviously simply the CA spin. Does that clarify my viewpoint? William M. Connolley 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

So you're saying that the criticism of Mann's research in the Wikipedia article was a rehashing of one particular critic's views?

Yes William M. Connolley 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

To my layman's perspective that would appear to violate the undue weight clause of WP:NPOV in what purports to be a general article about scientific practice: some cut and dried historical case would be preferable. I doubt that particular example could satisfy undue weight no matter how it's written because if it were balanced with citiations in Mann's defense then it would expand to take up too much article space and there appears to be legitimate dispute over whether Mann's conduct represents an example of the phenomenon at all. If this represents a notable controversy then it belongs in Mann's biography - and I leave the phrasing of notable controversy somewhat vague so that it may include both scientific and political angles.

Your critics have produced two examples of general audience publications where you coauthored with Mann.[22][23] One of them asked for extra time to search for peer reviewed publications and in the interest of fairness I'll give them another day to search. My comments on the material I've already viewed are at the COIN thread. If you have anything specific to say about these two examples I'd be interested. Durova^Charge! 15:55, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Don't be so quick to pass judgment on McIntyre, when he's the one being attacked by William's blog.[24] —The preceding unsigned comment was added by UBeR (talk • contribs) 17:43, 6 April 2007 (UTC).

It doesn't really belong in Manns biog - but it does belong in, and is covered in, hockey stick controversy William M. Connolley 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Unless one has slipped my mind, there are no PR pubs, so they can search all they like. Of those 2: the first merely lists me as an RC author, which is known already, so I don't know why they are listing that again. The second is effectively a blog posting William M. Connolley 16:04, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

---

I've moved two posts that broke up my statement. Hope no one minds. Durova^Charge! 21:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Freemasonry FAC

I've nominated this for FAC, and I wouldn't mind a more experienced eye weighing in on the debate. The nomination box is on Talk:Freemasonry. Thanks! MSJapan 04:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to wish you good luck but not comment. I know nothing about Fm; and I'm not a good judge of FA type stuff William M. Connolley 10:23, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] New redirect to Global Warming page

User:Sm8900 created a new page see here and redirected that to the Global Warming page. I'm not sure why... Count Iblis 13:31, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Weird. I've deleted it - not that it will stop him recreating it if he wants to William M. Connolley 16:06, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi Iblis. Well you caught me. Guess I can admit to you guys the reason. My reason for doing so was a really nefarious reason, designed to undermine the efforts of good people everywhere. If my plot had worked, skies would have reeled, mountains would have crumbled, and the spot you're currently standing on would have been knee-deep in trout. Fortunately for good folks everywhere it was foiled. By the way, i told some people I created that just as a useful shortcut, for my own convenience, and also that of anyone else, but lucky that flimsy rationalization was deflated.

I'm just kidding, in case you thought otherwise. :-) I don't mind you being a little puzzled. I don't quite understand why you deleted it. Perhaps you could explain, although it's not that important. Anyway, obviously no huge deal. See you. --Sm8900 18:08, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Pointless redirects are candidates for speedy deletion William M. Connolley 19:33, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming

Your critique of my opinion is irrelevant here. It's not what you think. I feel that the article is slanted, biased and superficial. I have a right to raise my objection on the talk page, and I have a right to indicate to other editors that some editors here have a problem with the article as it now stands. The article is not at all comprehensive, and someone needs to point that out. And I find it highly disrespectful when people remove warning tags that were placed in the article in good faith. No one owns the article. I have a strong mind to revert it, but fear violating 3RR. Orane (talk • cont.) 16:35, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, my critique of your opinion is entirely relevant. If you've added your tag for an invalid reason - as you obviously have, since you make no attempt to defend your opinion - it should be removed William M. Connolley 16:42, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I have defended my opinion on the talk page, under 'neutrality,' and others have supported me. You have no right to guard the article as you have been doing, and you are in no position whatsoever to judge whether my opinions are valid or invalid. I can see why numerous attempts to improve and balance the article have failed— editors like you bludgeon anyone who dares to challenge it. This is an article that fails miserably to explore the political and social aspects of global warming (Why, for example, have governments failed to ratify the Kyoto Protocol?), and fails to give due treatment to those who doubt global warming, or whether greenhouse gasses are the cause. Don't, however, for a minute think that I'll concede to your bullying. Orane (talk • cont.) 17:05, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

No, you've asserted that the article says "Global warming is happening, we are all gonna die". Since this is obviously false, what are your views worth? The political and social aspects have their own articles, and I'm not clear why you want to force them into here. GW is a nice article that accurately represents the state of the science - and this is why you hate it William M. Connolley 19:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Ok, how about moving past the 'we are all gonna die' premise? I'm certain that I have explained myself far more clearly here, as well as in the FA review, so I fail to see why you hang on to my previous statements. And don't believe that you have the right to guard the article because you are a climate modeler. I could care less. This is Wikipedia, not Antarctica. I'm well-aware that the political and social have their own articles, but as a featured article (yes, its supposed to be a "featured article," not a "nice article" as you claim), "Global Warming" should contain a summary of the daughter articles— this would fulfill the 'comprehensive' criterion, and would address any issue of being biased. (Again, how did this article pass FAC?). Lastly, please don't presume to know me or why I have a particular opinion against the state of an article.

I'm obviously not getting through to you here, so I don't see the point of the back and forth discussion. Hopefully, with my help, this article can be demoted and then rewritten in a more comprehensive and inclusive manner. Orane (talk • cont.) 20:59, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

If you no longer defend the "gonna die" stuff then be honest and strike it out. If you do that, you have no argument left. I fear you are indeed making yourself quite clear - your aim is to turn the article into unmanageble junk to fit your views, which is sad William M. Connolley 21:07, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3rr

You've broken WP:3RR on global warming. Do please self-revert William M. Connolley 21:40, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll do no such thing, Mr Connolley. And if you revert it yourself, then you would have also committed 3RR...so I'm guessing that both of us may be blocked then? Orane (talk • cont.) 21:45, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

AFAIK, I haven't broken 3rr. Unlike you. William M. Connolley 21:47, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Going up to 3RR and then warning your edit-enemy that they've violated 3RR and should self-revert could be seen by those eager to give out blocks as gaming the system. In an edit war, blocking for three reverts or even fewer is perfectly acceptable. As I explained, I prefer to protect the article so that discussion continues to be possible; if you choose to spend the time sniping at each other and at me, then I've clearly made a mistake. (This sort of thing isn't very edifying either.) --Mel Etitis (Talk) 22:57, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Sigh. I think you've barged in where you weren't needed. James S was trolling William M. Connolley 21:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

I do not like this name-calling. I have been trying to contribute, and nobody else has been questioning my behavior in the past several months. If you are upset because of what I have to say, then I urge you to try to refrain from lashing out with name-calling and threats of banning. James S. 08:20, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Common Cause

Good job with your quick response to my inquiry regarding the violation of the 3RR rule on that article. I can see why you're an administrator. Did you read my comment before you deleted it from your talk page? XINOPH | TALK 00:36, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I've lost context on this. Remind me what this is about William M. Connolley 22:00, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Did Stern do it on purpose?

What if Stern went ahead and calculated the perpetuity, and then fit the assumptions around the results so that the report would be tenable in Islamic countries where interest is sacrilegious? I am told that accountants juggle things like that all the time. I know it sounds outlandish, but Islam is popular in some of the largest oil-producing nations. Do you have the opportunity to speak with Stern in your professional capacity? James S. 23:08, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

The last first: no. The diea it was done for islamic purposes appers to me to be absurd, when the more obvious explanation is available William M. Connolley 15:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Stern seems to be approachable -- he has recently been on a radio call-in talk show on KQED-FM. What do you think the more obvious explanation is? Also, your assertion that "the vast majority of economists" disagree with his findings does not seem to be attributable. Is it? James S. 01:16, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

James, please stop playing silly games. You are degenerating to troll level. If you keep up like this with nothing meaningful to say I'll be removing your comments William M. Connolley 07:34, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Those are serious questions, I have not been trolling. Why do you think they are not serious? I have sent a message to Sir Nicholas Stern asking about the possible equivalence of a traditional interest rate run as a perpetuity and the low rate run until only 2200. I will share the reply. James S. 08:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Regarding recent edits to The Great Global Warming Swindle

[twaddle cut - WMC]

Obviously the welcome is unnecessary - however I am disappointed that once again you are making disruptive edits rather than taking your issues with the article to the talk page. As I have stated before, as an administrator you are supposed to know better - the article is going to end up protected again if you and others edit war over something which is of very little consequence to the content of the article. It is not up to you to determine whether TGGWS is propaganda - even if you post it to your blog and then try to cite it (I know that's not what you've done, but given the discussions on the talk page some will undoubtedly accuse you of it). QmunkE 22:52, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this on the talk page. A compromise was worked out and has been broken. Do your part - restore it. Otherwise, stop pretending edit wars are one-sided William M. Connolley 07:30, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm not pretending anything, and obviously the other parties involved are just as responsible. However you are an administrator and that is the part that causes concern. You seem unable to distance your personal views on the subject from your contributions, and feel that policy can be ignored when you believe the other party is in the wrong. THF made an edit to move the "polemic" statement out of the lead - if you disagreed with this you should have brought it up on the talk page when you discovered the move, rather than spitefully re-inserting edits which had already been discussed and subsequently removed, in a flagrant violation of WP:POINT. QmunkE 08:33, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree. Moving the polemic out of the lad broke the agreement; as such, I'm fully entitled to restore the entirely appropriate description of the film as propaganda, which it certainly is. Please leave out the junk like "spiteful" if you want to post here. Please don't make vague threats about "POINT" unless you're going to back them up William M. Connolley 09:19, 9 April 2007 (UTC)

Really? What sources other than your blog and blogs you have written for describe said film as propaganda? It seem the consensus, if you will, is that it is a documentary. As QmunkE said, you're an administrator and should know better. Such disruptive edits can be considered a violation of WP:POINT. ~ UBeR 16:26, 9 April 2007 (UTC)