User talk:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Grant here. I've signed on as a user on Wiki. I've already composed a more rigorous discussion about Monckton's use of temperature reconstructions to claim that the mediaeval warm period was as warm as the modern warm period; I originally composed it for my blog, but now I'll contribute it to this effort. I've also composed a polite response to Monckton's claim (on pg. 11) that the US National Academy of Sciences has stated that the hockey stick is defective -- nothing could be further from the truth.

I'm "on the road" today but will be back online tomorrow morning, at which time I'll post what I've got so far. Grantfoster 13:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent. Don't forget to put your credentials on your user page. Dbuckner 13:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


More on the structure of the Wiki: as mentioned elsewhere, I would think it helpful to develop a section of the Wiki for each point of each one of Monckton's articles. Current input can be parsed into those sections. Thereafter, new material can be added into individual sections, with the ultimate goal of a clear and succint response to each point, by editorial mastication.

For Monckton's detailed backgrounder, which was not published in newsprint, it might be more appropriate to have a webpage, rather than an unpublishably long article.

This structure of course would prevent people from making original logical linkages, but that's not a bad thing: the point is to produce a Monckton anti-article, so there's no need to improve on his organization, just on the content within that organization.

Regards, Nealjking 23:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

That is an excellent idea. I am a bit time constrained, however. Would anyone else like to do this? Meanwhile, and connected with this, the one thing I promised to do was to list out, as a 'Devil's Advocate', the arguments in Monckton's paper that I found convincing. Dbuckner 09:38, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Edward,

It seems that the main points you named in the DA's section have to do with the hocky stick and the MWP, which are discussed for quite a lot of Monckton's article. These are probably the most complex and subtle points that need to be addressed. I think the material you posted from Chris and from Grant addresses it well, but I will look it over to see what parts I think would fit into a directed response. I think this has to be done very carefully: it is easy to give the impression of too much hand-waving on these points.

In the meantime, you can see that I have added two main sections with my view of the appropriate topics in order; the earlier section is a draft of the anti-article, and the second a draft o fthe anti-backgrounder. Most of these as yet have very little content, but I will start filling in from what has been brought in earlier and from what I know myself (appropriately supported by references, of course). I plan to have the most fun with the Stefan-Boltzmann law discussion. Nealjking 13:44, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Neal, note that the sections you have given, excellent as they are, overlap with the sections I have set out. All this needs consolidating into a single article, to avoid confusion. For example, there are now two sections on the Medieval Warm Period. Dbuckner 16:30, 18 November 2006 (UTC)


Edward,

True. I think the right way to do this is to i) focus attention first on the anti-backgrounder, until this is more-or-less together, and then ii) work on the newspaper article, which can then be tuned to the same level as Monckton's, but based on corrected information in our anti-backgrounder.
So I have consolidated everything. I've also put the anti-backgrounder draft first, and the anti-article draft later. And I'm beginning to streamline the MWP material from Chris, as well as add material in other sections. The MWP material is rather long, so it may look rather obviously "under construction" for a few days.

Nealjking 13:40, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Grant, Welcome back. It's been going slower than I had hoped (real life keeps interfering), but I'm encouraged that two or three other people have been kicking in from time to time. A major problem is that there are so many references: we can see that his use of some of them is highly questionable (i.e., contradictory to the plain meaning of the author), but I'm not even sure that we can access all of them, much less critique his utilization of them. Oh well, maybe when we get further along, someone with lots of subscriptions and energy will sweep in and tell us about all of Monckton's other forms of reference abuse. Nealjking 21:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)


Contents

[edit] From the Devil's Advocate

As agreed, I will be play 'devil's advocate' and outline the parts of Monckton's paper which seem convincing to the ordinary unscientifically trained reader (such as myself).

1. I did not pay much attention to Monckton's positive arguments (pp. 23 ff), for the reason that they were too technical, also because it was clear already that Monckton was not scientifically trained, and therefore not speaking as an expert.

2. I also did not look too closely at the argument on p.4 with the 400,000 year graph of temperature cycles. This was not treated in sufficient detail to be convincing, and seemed to beg many questions.

3. However, his main argument about the existence of the Medieval Warm Period was convincing, for the following reasons.

The 'Medieval Warm Period' is a period from about 900-1300 when supposedly temperatures were as high as, or higher than today. If this period existed at all, it is highly damaging to any argument that today's rise in temperatures (which everyone agrees on) are in any way special or unique to the modern period (i.e. twentieth century onwards). Monckton's arguments are as follows.

  • the Greenland and 'chinese navy' arguments on p.5. Every schoolboy knows about the colonisation of Greenland by the vikings, and the subsequent failure – apparently due to permafrost. Few know about the Chinese navy sailing across the polar ice cap, but that makes it more convincing.
  • the graphs on p6. contrasting a UN graph from a 1996 report, which shows a clear medieval warm 'hump', with the newer 2001 'hockey stick' shape. That sold me in the first instant. Both these reports are apparently 'official', and seem to represent scientific consensus at the time. But they are inconsistent with each other. Undermines the authority of scientists. Furthermore, what induced consensus opinion to change? And how can a whole period disappear. Who named it the 'medieval warm period'?
The graph in the 1996 report was a guestimate, mostly based on anecdotal data from descriptions of climate. At least that was the what was said in the Wegman hearings (the second one) found here - the actual words where that it was a "cartoon". --Kim D. Petersen 22:40, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • Monckton argues (p.7) that the change came from a single experiment, which used proxy data from bristlecone pines. He cites the UN as originally recommending against the use of this data because of the CO2 acceleration of growth, which causes a false appearance of recent warming. He shows (ibid) two graphs, one of which supports the warming hypothesis, the other of which does not. He claims that Mann et al gave the former more prominence in their analysis. The argument on p8 I find dubious, so I will pass it over. It is claimed there is an elementary mistake in the PCA program run by Mann. On p9 it is claimed that if the dataset used by Mann is run without the bristlecone pine data, the MWP reappears. This is convincing, if true. It should easily be replicable.
This is also incorrect the MBH paper and graph was one of several proxystudies that were included in the TAR, here you should read at least the first part of Mr. Thomas R. Karl Director National Climatic Data Center testimony for the first Wegman hearing - the first hearing can be found here and Karl's written testimony here --Kim D. Petersen 22:52, 18 November 2006 (UTC)
  • On p10 Monckton cites a series of supposed experts who apparently disagree with the 'hockey stick' hypothesis. (Muller 2004, Dorland, Cubasch, Tennekes). He cites (p.11) a US Senate report (2005) as concluding the UN 2001 report was statistically flawed. The Senate report also mentioned the existence 'of a small but closely-connected group of paleoclimatologists who effectively dominated their field worldwide'. Also the US National Academy of Sciences issuing a statement that the 'hockey stick' graph is flawed.
  • On p12 there is another convincing graph that suggests the current period is no more than a 'blip'. On the same page, Monckton cites the paper by Soon and Balunias (2003), which apparently concluded that the 20th century was not a uniquely extreme climatic period.
  • On pp 13 -16 there are other studies cited on temperature in different parts of the world, which support the same conclusion.

4. The rest of the paper (from 16-23) relies on weaker arguments which a Devil's advocate will naturally pass over.

Dbuckner 09:39, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "There was little ice at the North Pole: a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 and found none."

No source is given for this claim, but it may be based on the contents of a book called "1421: The Year China Discovered The World" wikipedia article - The_Year_China_Discovered_The_World

This issue is further detailed (and critisized) here: wikipedia article - 1421_hypothesis

It appears the idea of the Chinese Navy sailing all around the world in 1421 is based on a popular history book, and isn't accepted by mainstream historians - in fact it looks like it is a heavily critized hypothesis from the point of view of mainstream historians.

The wikipedia entry on the Northeast Passage doesn't mention a chinese fleet passing through there in 1421 either. wikipedia article - Northeast_Passage

This site also provides some useful analysis of this claim, seeking to "expose" the book. There is a proposed map here - you can see that it is proposed that Chinese fleets travelled through the Northeast Passage and around greenland. external site - www.1421exposed.com

This page questions the greenland trip in some detail. external site - www.1421exposed.com

I think this part is especially interesting, and ties in with other contrarian claims:

"In order to shore up various claims about the balmy weather enjoyed by the hypothetical Chinese explorers of Greenland, in contrast with the conditions endured by later travelers in the same waters, 1421 embellishes its account of the nonexistent “Oslo” documents, which “paint a very different picture of the land we know as Greenland... [Sigrid] possessed substantial flocks of sheep and cattle that fed on lush Greenland pastures, a scene quite unrecognizable from today’s barren, icebound land” (349). Suffice it to say that in addition to its other inaccuracies, this description bears witness to an astounding ignorance of Greenland topography. The inner fjord areas, where the medieval Norse tended their farms for about half a millennium, are actually as green and inviting during the summer season now as they were a thousand years ago, when Eirik the Red decided that this was where he wanted to settle."

So the claim that a Chinese naval squadron sailed right round the Arctic in 1421 is seriously in doubt. I think raising these concerns is good enough. Monckton should have sourced his claim if he is using some other source (what's this about a 40 page background document by Monckton? I haven't seen this, perhaps further info on this matter can be found in there?)

It also sounds like Monckton has tacked on an additional claim of his own not supported by the book when he says the chinese fleet found no ice in the north pole. The books seems to only suggest that a fleet sailed around greenland and through the northeast passage. Even if that were true, it doesn't mean they didn't encounter ice. As mentioned in an above wikipedia link, you can sail the northeastern passage today for two months of the year, but that doesn't mean you won't see ice. (Does the fact that you can sail it mean there is "very little" ice at the north pole today?)

Jcthulhu 19:27, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually I just did some searching online and found this is mentioned on the deltoid blog.

Jcthulhu 04:36, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

The claim that the Chinese fleet sailed round the Arctic in 1421. This is based on a book by Gavin Menzies that claimed that 7,000 Chinese sailors, under the command of eunuch admiral Zheng He, not only sailed around the world before Vasco de Gama, but also established colonies in Australia, New Zealand, British Columbia, California, Mexico, Puerto Rico, and Rhode Island; completing a voyage of some 17,000 miles in mainly unknown seas in only seven months. Professional historians treat the idea as an invented hoax on par with various ‘new age’ theories passed off as ‘fact’. For discussion see: Journal of World History and History news network. http://www.historycooperative.org/journals/jwh/15.2/finlay.html http://www.historynewsnetwork.com/roundup/comments/30874.html Monckton says that it was a scientist who wrote a book called ‘The Cooling’ that anticipated a new ice age. In fact a journalist called Lowell Ponte wrote it. Ponte now works as a right-wing talk show host on libertarian radio in America.

Can one of you guys < Dbuckner ? > email me and I'll email back what I've got. Quite a lot on the solar section. It may be best to let each other know what we have and one person knock it into final shape. I'm registered as Penwith. email me on timdennell@yahoo.co.uk

On the Chinese sail through the north polar region: All this is very interesting, but in the actual article he only gives it one line, and then he gives references that, apparently, have absolutely nothing to do with this statement. Rather than getting all worked up about the truth/falsity of this story, isn't enough to point out that his statement is completely unsupported by his references? That's pretty damning.

A short mentioning - which also mentioned that Monckton corrected himself (but still claims to have seen it in a peer-reviewed paper) should be enough - it should also be noted that the (unknown) paper isn't included in the references. --Kim D. Petersen 06:59, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some of the material here needs putting in the main page

Some interesting and useful material, but the facts themselves should go in the main article, of which this is the discussion. E.g. the references about the Chinese Navy. Neal has organised the sections so there should be a place for all of the material (if not, change the sections appropriately). Is there any material from the original RealClimate discussion that belongs here? If so, copy it over.

Some of the prose in the article is overly chatty or 'purple'. Try and maintain a completely factual and colourless tone (you can always add pastel shades in afterwards!). Dbuckner 08:39, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Please also note the correct spelling of hockEy stick! Dbuckner 08:47, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Links to papers referenced in Moncktons text - where available.

Put a link to the papers referenced by Monckton here, where possible give a link to the full text, otherwise just to the abstract. It is often possible to find the full text of papers by looking at the authors website for publication lists.

I suggest that we list the papers in topical order - this way it is easy to find the papers relevant to a specific section.

  • Generic:
    • HOUGHTON, Sir John. 2002. Overview of the climate change issue. Presentation to “Forum 2002” at St. Anne’s College, Oxford. [1]
    • KHANDEKAR, M.L., Murty, T.S., and Chittibabu, P. 2005. The global warming debate: a review of the state of science. Pure and Applied Geophysics 162: 1557-1558. [2]
  • CO2 and temperature proxies
    • PETIT, J.R. et al. 1999. Climate and atmospheric history of the past 420,000 years from the Vostok Ice Core, Antarctica. Nature 399: 429-436. [3]
    • SOON, W. and Baliunas, Sallie. 2003. Proxy Climate and Environmental Changes of the Past 1000 Years, Climate Res. 23: 89–110. [4]
  • Solar variation:
    • HANSEN, J., Nazarenko, L., Ruedy, R., Sato, M., Willis, J, Del Genio, A., Koch, D., Lacis, A., Lo, K., Menon, S., Novakov, T., Perlwitz, J., Russell, G., Schmidt, G., and Tausnev, N. 2006. Earth’s energy imbalance: confirmation and implications. Science 308: 1431-1434. [5]
    • SOLANKI, S. K. and Fligge, M. 1998. Solar irradiance since 1874 revisited. Geophysical Research Letters, 25: 341-344. [6]
    • SOLANKI, S.K., Usoskin, I.G., Kromer, B., Schüssler, M. and Beer, J. 2005. Unusual activity of the Sun during recent decades compared to the previous 11,000 years. Nature 436: 174 (14 July 2005) | doi: 10.1038/436174b [7]
    • WILLSON, R.C., and Mordvinov. A.V., 2003. Secular total solar irradiance trend during solar cycles 21-23. Geophysical Review Letters, 30: 5, 1199, doi:10.1029/2002GL016038. [8]

[edit] Context?

Just wondering if you've read the main wiki pages, many of which are relevant: e.g. scientific opinion on climate change or urban heat island or global cooling or temperature record of the past 1000 years William M. Connolley 20:24, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I've read some or most of them, but perhaps not systematically. Keep in mind that this page is just for discussion, we're trying to generate the articles in response to Monckton on the "user page". In my opinion, everything is still pretty rough, because we're trying to develop our material in parallel with Monckton's, which makes for choppy transitions sometimes; and also, there are holes in our analysis, because of the sheer number of references that Monckton makes: unfortunately, we have found that our interpretations of the meaning of these references departs from the conclusions Monckton seems to draw by up to 180o.

Nealjking 21:58, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

OK, it isn't really clear just what this stuff *is* doing here... Also http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2006/11/cuckoo-science/ is the answer to the S-B stuff William M. Connolley 22:29, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
The purpose is to generate an article parallel in order and content with Monckton's, that responds succintly and as completely as necessary to his several articles and background paper. We want to provide a one-stop response to a reader without time to search through websites and down correspondence lists: a Monckton anti-article, in effect.

Nealjking 01:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some recent contributions from "unknown"

These contributions have been so large in scope that i've reverted the changes completely. While there are some elements that are good contributions - there are others that simply are not correct.

To answer please add a ':' (or more according to comment level) to the beginning - and remember to sign the comment --Kim D. Petersen 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

When making contributions - please only edit a section. This way it is easier to see the changes, and to comment on them.

For the unknown contributer: The NAS panel report does not support your changes - and neither does the Wegman report. If there are specific major changes that you believe should be done (contrasting cleaning up other contributions) - i suggest that you discuss it here first - it would also be nice if you created a useraccount, so that we are able to link the contributions to you, and have a place where we can discuss the specifics (if not here). --Kim D. Petersen 00:35, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

To Anonymous contributer:

Your changes are entirely too intrusive, you've deleted whole sections of contributions - without comment. This is not acceptable.

For instance in the section "Was there a medieval warm period" you delete entire discussions of the papers that Monckton references - and replace it with a small section on Viking settlements (which as far as i can tell is even incorrect GEUS Yearly report 2000 the front picture is from Hvalsø in 2000 - doesn't look like permafrost to me.). Your attachment text to the Soon&Baliunas paper is entirely inappropriate - for one: How do you quantify the defects? Mann et al contained a methodological error which has no influence on the results. Soon&Baliunas' is not even peer-reviewed, and contain numerous errors and defects which significantly alter the conclusions.

Can you please explain your rationale for these changes? --Kim D. Petersen 20:00, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Recent Edits by someone claiming to be James Rowlatt a Clerk to Lord Monckton

It seems that our anonymous editor, mentioned in the previous paragraph, claims to be a representative of Monckton. Will everyone please check the "contributions" by this person? So that we can determine:

  1. The validity or merit of the criticism
  2. If anything really comes in under libel. (i doubt it very much - but be certain).

Here is the "disclaimer" put in by this person:

Though attempts have been made to correct the numerous scientific errors and libels against Lord Monckton that appear in this Wikipedia document, the author of the document appears determined to go well beyond fair comment and to persist in the libels. Therefore, readers are advised to regard these pages as unreliable, and to verify the scientific facts independently of any material which may appear here. Lord Monckton's lawyers are currently attempting to identify the perpetrator of the libels, and may in due course issue proceedings against the perpetrator and against Wikipedia. - James Rowlatt, Clerk to Lord Monckton

(Note to Mr. Rowlatt - if you really want to get in touch with any of us my email is: kim.petersen@gmail.com --Kim D. Petersen 16:45, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

  • I'm on OTRS; Viscount Monckton has complained about this pa), and asked that it be deleted, as he feels it to contain ad hominem attacks. I have advised him to register an account and join the debate, openly stating his identity - and also to first read up on the protocol/etiquette/etc, so as to avoid being mistaken for a troublemaker impersonating a Viscount. I'm going to ask for permission to excerpt his specific complaints on this talk page, in fact. DS 18:15, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I have moved this

Please see the new article Apocalypse cancelled. As you all recall, I had no direct part in this except to allow the use of my home page. Best Dbuckner 20:46, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not entirely certain that it is smart to have this page as a subpage to the Global warming wikipage (since this entitles that it cannot just be an collaboration to create an answer) - can we move it to somewhere else? I'm willing to use my homepage as the root of this document - for instance? We can use the Apocalypse cancelled page to move things over to when we are ready to mix it with 2 viewpoints (more NPOV than a response to the article could be). User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/climate --Kim D. Petersen 21:59, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
If accepted - can we please move the pages so that we can have the history of the page as well? --Kim D. Petersen 22:02, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
Probably DS is the best one to route this through, him being an administrator. Actually, I don't see why it can't be an article in its own right, as the whole principle of Wikipedia is that the articles are always changing. I've been editing this since very early days. Dbuckner 07:51, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
When the response is finished or at least in the stages where it could be released - then i agree. But currently the one-sided albeith neutral style is needed. Which i do not think is entirely appropriate for a wikipedia final page. Since you agree - i'll try to move the page --Kim D. Petersen 09:00, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
Ok - i've moved it entirely out of your userspace - thank you for starting us up by having it there in the first place --Kim D. Petersen 09:21, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Talk from the temporary Global_Warming/Apocalypse Cancelled page.

An answer to the issue: Monckton claims that IPCC mis-states the natural greenhouse effect at 20oC instead of 33oC, in order to make the human-caused contribution seem more significant, can be found at http://rabett.blogspot.com/2006/12/shine-on-shine-on-moncktons-moon.html, it is esthetically pleasing, and many others make the same mistake.--Eli Rabett

Thank you for that one - can we use it here? --Kim D. Petersen 09:22, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


I have removed one para which is highly subjective. To show there is a consensus, it is sufficient to show there is a consensus: in the form of a list, or reference to a list of recognised authorities on the subject. Attacks like this add no credibility to your argument. Dbuckner 20:55, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I think that you may have misread the section - it is not an attack - but merely describes why a consensus cannot be "pulled down" upon people - the "he" in the paragraph is referring to the hypothetical scientist wanting to get his name on the Nobel price comittee's list of candidates (nb: please check the old talk page) --Kim D. Petersen 22:08, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Further note

Previous discussion is on user talk:Dbuckner/climate.

Edward,

The purpose of the paragraph you removed was not an attack, but an approach to defining what is meant by the term "consensus", and explaining why a single or even a vocal handful of experts that object to that approach does not in itself prove that there is not a consensus. This was a philosophical point, which might be overly wordy, but I'm surprised that you view it as an attack.
Of greater concern to me: Now that you have changed the page location, we have lost the earlier history. I noticed that a few days ago, there was some unidentified editing that I would view as hostile to the intent of the effort (which is to formulate a response to Monckton's article), which was caught and reverted by KimDabelsteinPetersen. Can you check to be sure that something else did not escape? I have no way to tell, since the history now begins just a day or so ago.

Nealjking 00:58, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

OK. I misread the word 'shouting'. Looking at the para again, I still don't like it, and I still think it dilutes your case, because it signals to the disinterested reader that there is some subtle or philosophical point being made here. All the average reader wants to know is, whether most reputable scientists are pretty much agreed on the matter, at the current time (we all agree that future evidence may change their minds) or whether there is still a significant minority out there who disagree. Or whether there are still some major unsolved or not-agreed-upon issues. Indeed, that is exactly, as an outsider, what I would like to know, and all I see is what looks like flannel (sorry). The main point of the para is that there is now no significant debate about the matter. Fine, that's the claim, now where is the evidence? Suitable evidence would include lists of the most prominent scientists, references to papers or public claims. Also, the more difficult to prove claim that no recent papers offer any dissent from the 'consensus' view. The usual accepted way to do this is a summary or perusal of the recent literature.

I'm coming at this, as I said, as a reasonably neutral person who would like to know the truth. Proving difficult, still. Dbuckner 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

On the article history issue, that seems to be solved, no? Dbuckner 10:49, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Yep - when i moved the page, the history and discussion (incl disc. history) moved along as well. --Kim D. Petersen 00:45, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Edward, I don't really care about the paragraph that much. However, I would like you to understand the rationale, which is the following: When one says, "The scientific consensus is...", a very common skeptical response is, "Real science doesn't work by consensus... All the great scientists have made progress by contradicting the scientific consensus of their times... Wasn't it the consensus that the world is flat?.." and so forth. The purpose of the original paragraph was to forestall such misunderstandings, by explaining what was meant by the term "consensus" in a scientific context. Nealjking 19:30, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] further point

I noticed that some further evidence is turning up on the original 'cuckoo science' blog. Should this be incorporated into the article? Apologies if it already had - I didn't have time to check. Dbuckner 10:52, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Edward, Yes, there is a discussion going back and forth. I have been too busy to do more than chat: it takes a little bit more time to write in a more balanced way. Later this week, I will get to it. Nealjking 03:28, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Libel threats to Wikimedia

Please be advised that His Lordship Christopher Walter Monckton, 3rd Viscount Monckton of Brenchley has contacted the WMF office with the intent of expressing direct legal threats of action for statements on his Wikipedia entry and this page. Which begs the question, precisely what does this page have to do with anything encyclopedic? Why is this here and not on some other private wiki somewhere? I see nothing here to suggest it will end up being a mainspace article; I am concerned that the authors here are ignorant of the legal risk they run.--Brad Patrick 05:00, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course we will be moving the article away from Wikipedia if this is neccessary.
I agree that the article as it stands now isn't usefull as a mainspace article, but there are sections and elements that is relevant for several different articles, and they will in turn be merged into these. The main goal is 1) a response article (hopefully for the Telegraph) and 2) Added content for the articles under Climate change - quite possibly 3) an article with sceptic argumentation and responses to these (there already is a page like this Global warming scepticism)
I have to say though, that i'm not as concerned about libel, as i am about the censoring aspects here.
The article is heavily researched and i believe that a libel suit would be difficult - as everything is done according to Wikipedia:Verifiability, a discussion could be made over WP:NPOV. I've checked the guidelines and pages referred to from WP:LIBEL
Please run a cursory view over the article to check if i'm entirely wrong.
We have tried to get a dialogue with the (anonymous) editor - and haven't just dismissed the critique. As witnessed by the history pages and content found here on the talk page. --Kim D. Petersen 09:18, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the page is now being tagged for deletion. Which is quite Ok, and according to Wikipedia rules - but i seem to miss some constructive discussion about this, there seems to be a general intent for this page to be removed, no matter the reasons. First it was because of a "complaint" from someone who (from all we've seen of it) only "claims" to be Lord Monckton (or his aide). Then it was because of the structure in the article not being suitable for the main wiki namespace (where i actually agree). But my main objection still is: Where in all this is the discussion with us, as the editors of the page? Every discussion that (apparently) has been about this page - is happening outside of our input - we cannot even what the reasons are for the steps being taken. Has anyone for instance noticed that the same person who claims to be Lord Monckton, also insistantly deletes all content on the Peter Tatchell article, without reasons? (see: [[9]]) Where do we go to get our say in the debate here? --Kim D. Petersen 09:24, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

The discussion occurs on the VFD page: in this case Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled. You are expected to go there - there is after all a notice on at the top of the page inviting you to do so. You'll notice that the reason for deletion is not libel, but that this isn't a wiki article. Wiki *isn't* here for the general public to use as a collaborative workspace. I can elaborate on this if you like. In the meantime, I'd take a copy if I were you William M. Connolley 09:49, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
I have already commented on the VFD page, but thank you for the reminder anyways :-). And i've already taken copies, unfortunatly we loose all history in the transition to another wiki. Hopefully at least some of our work can be used in other articles here, even if we have to move it away. --Kim D. Petersen 10:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
It is btw interesting to see the edits that our "anonymous" contributor has made here. (since i know that you are interested in AGW sceptics). --Kim D. Petersen 10:37, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
Actually, I am just as happy to move this discussion to another site. The point that the Wikipedia proper is not the right place to develop an article makes sense to me (which is why I haven't taken part on the VFD page), and in fact I originally thought that the NPOV restrictions of Wikipedia would be somewhat limiting and awkward for a document under development. Now we're also getting editing which is hostile to the intent, which adds more difficulty in building it up, as we need to edit out this stuff. I would really rather appoint a chief editor and have an update-and-posting cycle. The steps would then be: a) Get a good first draft that the editors are happy with; b) Get the article vetted by someone at realclimate for any technical errors; and c) Get the article vetted by our "devil's advocate" for fairness and credibility. --Nealjking 15:51, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Page deleted

The discussion at Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/User:KimDabelsteinPetersen/Apocalyse Cancelled was closed as delete. I'm leaving the talk page here due to the length of the discussion. —Doug Bell talk 10:26, 13 December 2006 (UTC)