User talk:RonCram

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome!

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

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

Contents

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

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

[edit] Yazid Sufaat

Hi Ron, I overhauled the article Yazid Sufaat and answered your question in its talk page. LDH 08:54, 13 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Saddam Hussein and Al-Qaeda

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

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

[edit] spreading disinformation

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

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

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

[edit] CfD

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

[edit] Greetings!

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

[edit] Seeking Help

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

[edit] Plamegate Dispute

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

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

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

[edit] POV Brick Wall

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] High Praise for Weekly Standard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Wikipedia policy on NPOV

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

[edit] Disruption of Wikipedia

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

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

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

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

[edit] Larry C. Johnson article

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


[edit] Talk:Michael Scheuer

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

[edit] Mary O. McCarthy

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

[edit] RfC alert

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

[edit] Michael Scheuer

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

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

[edit] RfC

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

[edit] your voted needed

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

[edit] Cuba

Hi,

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

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

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

[edit] Saddam Hussein

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

[edit] Stalking

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

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

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

Consider this your last warning.

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

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

[edit] RfC

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

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

[edit] Rfc (bis)

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

[edit] Saddam Hussein and al-Qaeda

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

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

[edit] Deletion of RfC

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

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

[edit] Response

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

[edit] Hello

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

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

[edit] Global warming and related topics

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

[edit] A barnstar

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

[edit] Good faith

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

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

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

[edit] your comments in Talk:islam

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

It's one thing to personally dislike a religion. But to be so incredibly bigoted against it that a person must spout his or her warped views on an online encyclopedia and pass it off as fact shows that this guy must never, ever be allowed to become an admin. Clearly, some people need to grow up and develop a modicum of maturity. At least we know that this guy has zero chance of ever becoming an admin. In which case, he's only wasting his time on here trying to spout his views to an audience that won't take.Shabeki (talk) 06:59, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Proper sources

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

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

[edit] Response to Blaxthos

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

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

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

[edit] No controversy on Kennedy-KGB link

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

[edit] RFC Closed, Ted Kennedy

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

[edit] 3rr

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

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

[edit] Global warming discussion

RonCram,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kurt Volker, a U.S. diplomat said

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hays: Yes, we supported that at this meeting.

Here's Hays again:

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

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

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

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

[edit] Global Warming farce of an article about controversy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] My academic training

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

[edit] The Barnstar of Valour

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

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

[edit] Uber is being reviewed

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

[edit] Evidence of a conspiracy

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

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

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

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

[edit] McIntire and climate reconstructions

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

Hi Stephan. William and I have been around and around on this. I think we finally see eye to eye. William is correct when he says M&M have never done their own reconstructions. They do not express their opinion on the matter because they have not done their own reconstructions "from scratch." For them to do their own reconstructions, they would have to be confident that all of the proxies used were reliable. What M&M have done is a little different. They searched the literature and found that the proxies used by Mann and Jones were considered unreliable by experts in the field. Mann used the bristlecone pine series and Jones (if I remember correctly) used the Polar Urals series. The NAS and Wegman agreed with M&M regarding the bristlecone pine series. I don't think any third party has evaluated the McIntyre vs Jones controversy, but I'm certain any independent assessment would side with McI. What McI and McK did in both cases was remove the errors and rerun the reconstruction. What this effort does is provide readers who trust the remaining Mann and Jones proxies with accurate results. (If a particular reader trusted the Mann and Jones proxies prior to correction, then they should certainly accept the version after the errors have been removed.) McK published the corrected Mann version. McI published the corrected Jones reconstruction. In both cases the corrected reconstruction shows the 20th century was not outside natural climate variability. I hope this clears up the issue for you. RonCram 16:14, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ron. Mann et al actually used multi-proxy reconstruction, not single-proxy reconstruction. And your claim (and, to be fair, M&M's claim) is of course only correct if you a) accept their claim about the systematic error and b) accept their correction as correct. As far as I know, they have not found any support in the scientific literature. You might want to look at this RealClimate article (and, since you probably don't trust RealClimate, the original sources they cite). Also, since you like to have data and code, this page has all that for the Wahl and Amman paper, and finds all the "corrected" M&M versions to be statistically insignificant.--Stephan Schulz 19:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, to say that M&M have not found any support in the scientific literature is a bit bizarre. Perhaps your intent was more limited in scope. First, the Wegman panel supported M&M across the board.
The Wegeman report dealt only with statistical, not with climatological detail. Also....
I am sorry I do not know the entire composition of this panel but I know there were at least two anonymous reviewers to the Wegman Report so this has to be considered part of the “scientific literature.”
...that is plain wrong. The "anonymous reviewers" are not anonymous to Wegeman, but requested that their names should not be disclosed to third parties. From the answers to Stupak, it appears that Wegeman asked a few collegues to look over the report. That is in no way the same as a real anonymous peer review with reviewers selected by a neutral third party (the editor). In particular, the reviewers opinion had no influence on the publication of the report.
In addition to the Wegman Report, Wegman also published a response to Rep. Stupak. [13] Second, the NAS issued a report that was polite to Mann but agreed with M&M on all the disputed points of science. They agreed the bristlecone pine series is not reliable and should not be used. In spite of that, it is still being used today.
Your reading of the NAS report is bizarre. On the contrary, the NAS report granted some minor points, but reinforced the conclusions of MBH98 in all major topics. Try read it yourself, don't rely on the Mac's bowlderized interpretation.
Third, Burger and Cubasch examined M&M’s claim that MBH98 was not robust. They published in support of M&M: “Are Multiproxy Reconstructions Robust?” [14]
Not all criticisim of MBH98 supports M&M! This paper has nothing to do with M&M, but is independent criticism. I read it a while ago. The results depend on a particular climate model (I know you just love these!), and, moreover, all the reconstructions fit nicely within the error bars given in MBH98. This is not support for M&M at all.
Fourth, even the von Storch comment can be seen in support of M&M. Von Storch and Zorita published a comment noting they could reproduce the “Artificial Hockey Stick.” [15] However, they claimed it was not significant.
Again, that is a bizarre reading. The von Storch and Zorita paper actually attacks one aspect of M&M. It does not support them at all.
M&M responded with a paper showing that von Storch had found an example where it would not be significant but if they had examined the situation in MBH98, it is seen to be significant. [16] Von Storch has not replied, apparently conceding the point.
Von Storch probably has better things to do, especially since other papers since have shown that the MBH98 result is robust under various selection algorithms for principal components and even if no PCs are selected at all. There is no reason to belief that he has conceded the point. What is also interesting is that McIntyre claims to have re-read the vSZ 2005 note in 2006 and got a better appreciation - in other words, his previous note was apparently based on incomplete understanding.
You might be interested in this post by Zorita und von Storch. They are obviously far from "conceding the point". And please, before you quote-mine this to death, read the last sentences.--Stephan Schulz 09:01, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Regarding the lengthy Wahl & Ammann piece you cited, although M&M were quite dismissive of an earlier attempt by W&A, it appears they have not commented on this particular version. I will not attempt to comment at this point, except to note that the criticisms of Burger and Cubasch would apparently hold regarding this effort by W&A as well. I hope this clears up any misunderstanding you have that M&M “have not found any support in the scientific literature.” RonCram 20:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)
On the contrary, it shows that they have found extremely limited support, while a couple of newer papers strongly disagree with them.
Stephan, I just found the ClimateAudit category "Wahl and Ammann." [17] So I guess McIntyre has responded and I did not realize it. Enjoy the reading! RonCram 03:38, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
Honestly, I have better things to do then read through M&Ms confused, patronizing bile. I've tried a few times, but got nothing useful from it. If they get something published in a real journal, I'll happily read it.--Stephan Schulz 00:27, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Are humans affecting CO2 concentration?

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

Talk:Attribution_of_recent_climate_change#.22Most_fiercely_contested.22.3F

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Global warming

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

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

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

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

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

That I think is the debate we should be having.

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

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

Don't know what you think of all that.

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

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

[edit] Copyrighted material

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

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

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

[edit] Break time

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

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

Sorry to neglect your work. I've been busy in my new sysop role at Conservapedia. Your AGW outline is excellent. Would you like to donate it to Conservapedia? --Uncle Ed 23:46, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:COI Violations?

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

Zeeboid, sorry it has taken me so long to respond. Business has been very good and I have not had a moment to myself. This is the first chance I've had to give a thoughtful response. It is 5 am Saturday morning as I write this. Thanks for drawing my attention to this guideline. As I understand it, the guideline (as it is currently written) yields to Wikipedia:Etiquette which requires editors to assume good faith. The intention is for the guideline on COI to be used for self-governing and not to be used to win an edit war.[19] The best option seems to be to direct the activist to the guideline and to make certain he understands it. If he continues to make controversial edits or edit war regarding subjects where he has a financial interest or is publicly identified with, it appears that you may take the matter to the Conflict of Interest Noticeboard. [20] Without knowing more about the specific situation, it would be difficult for me to comment further.RonCram 12:28, 31 March 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Little bit naughty

Please don't canvas at the AfD for Scientific data withholding. I am afraid I voted delete although it was mainly to do with the title which isn't right. I don't know if we have enough content on the scientific method but certainly auditability is important. There is a lot of stuff around on drug approvals on this topic. --BozMo talk 06:55, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

What does "please don't canvas" mean? Why do you think the title is not right? If you google "data withholding" and "science" you get lots of hits. "Data withholding" is the proper term for refusing to provide data when requested. It is a big problem in medical and several other fields, including Earth Sciences. RonCram 14:25, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
"Please don't canvas" means exactly what it says. Canvassing (by leaving notes on user talk pages for users likely favourable to your desired result) is frowned uppon in Wikipedia.--Stephan Schulz 14:51, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Yea, you should be sending e-mails to people on your side, or communicatin through outside environmental blogs... isn't that right, Stephan?--Zeeboid 14:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Mu. --Stephan Schulz 15:22, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, Mu is just another way of pleading the 5th.RonCram 17:58, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Actually, no, it is not. It is a short way of saying "Your assumptions are so terminally stupid failing to conform to my view of reality that I don't see any value in continuing this particular discussion/answer that particular question". Click the link. And to avoid any misunderstanding, I mued Zeeboid, not you. You can read this as me denying that I'm part of a huge secret network of public environmental blogs and mailing lists used for coordination by the EAC (Eco-Activist Cabal).--Stephan Schulz 19:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Please don't avoid the point: Do not message editors about AfD nominations because they support your view on the topic. This can be seen as votestacking. See Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. [21] William M. Connolley 18:35, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Whats your deffinition of "mass talk messages" William? The American Heritage Dictionary lists it as: "A large but nonspecific amount or number" then defines "Large" as "Of greater than average size, extent, quantity, or amount; big." I would argue that User:RonCram's informing users of your... "issue" was not "Of greater then average" size. Would you Ron?--Zeeboid 19:06, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
I do not know why you ask that particular question. The word "mass" does not occur in William's quote. In fact, it does not occur anywhere in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion#AfD_etiquette or, unless my browsers "search" is broken, anywhere in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion at all.--Stephan Schulz 19:14, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Then you should read what william refrenced. "see Wikipedia:Canvassing for guidelines. its laid out quite clear."--Zeeboid 19:21, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
So you claim that this is a neutral message?--Stephan Schulz 19:29, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
Would you say that statement is inaccurate? could you also point out to me please how you see it as not Neutral? Come on Stephan, justify yourself.--Zeeboid 21:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
No. Black is white and up is down. Play your own little games. --Stephan Schulz 21:17, 3 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Neologism

You asked very reasonably which word was new in this AfD. Okay, I don't strictly mean neologism I mean coining a new phrase which people won't look for. See [22] the phrase doesn't seem to exist. --BozMo talk 08:08, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

"Data withholding" is a common term. "Data sharing" is a common term. Check Yahoo out. [23] You see there nearly 2,000 hits and the one at the top is the Wikipedia article William wants to delete. Check Google out. [24] You get more than 20,000 hits. Or you can Google "data sharing" which is the policy and you get more than 1,000,000 hits. [25] Not all of the "data sharing" hits deal with science - some are related to law enforcement and homeland security, etc. I do not want to sound rude here but "data withholding" and "data sharing" are common terms in science. People do search for them. One of the problems with the AfD is that people vote without knowing taking the time to learn and consider all of the facts. William wants it deleted before people can see how valuable the article is. I have to spend all of my time defending the article rather than making it better. And who is going to join me to make it better when it looks like it will be deleted? Check out this article. [26] RonCram 11:55, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Don't worry, I am not sensitive to people being rude when they don't intend it. I don't have a problem with the "data withholding" part. I am sure there is a better name: perhaps even "Data withholding (Science)", if you could manage a non POV article on it. Then at least I would need to look at the position within articles on scientific method. Just the phrase as written in the title isn't right. --BozMo talk 12:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Thank you for the reasonable response. I would be fine with a name change. If by "NPOV," you mean an article that does not criticize Michael Mann - I am afraid that is not possible. Michael Mann is the poster child for data withholding in climate science right now - although I think Phil Jones may be joining him soon. If by "NPOV," you mean an article William Connelly will favor - well, I don't think that is possible either. William and Mann are co-contributors to RealClimate. William is simply too close to Mann to allow certain well established facts to appear.[27] I have already put William on the COI noticeboard.[28]RonCram 12:44, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Well Martin Juckes whom you mentioned and deleted from the article is an old friend of mine too, and I don't much like McIntre personally... Seriously though I am not worried about other people's opinions. I suggest you don't make it all about climate change (and even refer to this kind of thing: [29] ) but I only have one vote at the end of the day. --BozMo talk 12:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Incidentally you shouldn't be surprised at my being reasonable. People tend to act how you treat them (as I know as a parent). Even WMC becomes very reasonable if approached with that expectation...--BozMo talk 12:53, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I have worked with William when he was reasonable. William devotes a huge amount of time to Wikipedia and provides a very valuable service much of the time. But I have also seen him completely unreasonable as he is whenever Mann is criticized and it really has nothing to do with how I treat him. I am very even tempered and get along with everyone in real life. I thought the Martin Juckes incident was interesting and I can see why McIntyre was particular pissed off at him, but I removed it because it was not really notable. I do not want the article to be all about climate change and have gone out of my way to make certain it is not. Readers need to see the issue in the larger context. Thank you for the interesting link. The issue of "data selection" is very similar to "data withholding" in the sense that not all of the data is being made available. But it seems that data selection can be an even greater crime against science. If a doctor conducts a study with 35 cancer patients and 25 die from the experimental treatment and 10 survive it and are cured, can the doctor claim to have cured 10 out of 10 patients? Of course not. For this reason, I view data selection as a fraud and data withholding as pseudoscience. Do you think I'm wrong?RonCram 13:14, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Data selection can be fraud (but its widespread especially from publication bias) I honestly don't know what pseudoscience means. I think that it should be a clear requirement of peer reviewed scientific publications that the data is auditable by third parties. But ... I have published analysis papers such as [30] where the data was only made available (by Det Norske Veritas) to people who funded a project on an "own use" basis. At least there were other parties involved to check but it made me unhappy. Popper would probably say you are right: it makes results unfalsifiable. Kuhn I am not so sure. --BozMo talk 13:50, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
Ron you shouldn't put too much faith in your 20.000 results - if you use Google in a little more creative way - you'd find that only 154 pages are referring to "data withholding" outside the context of medicine/genetics and inside the context of science [31] - could it be that you have the focus on a wrong subject? (oh and btw. if you add "pseudoscience" then we drop to 2 results). Try fiddling a bit with Google and determine just how large a subject this is - and why the focus in the article should be almost entirely on medicine and genetics. --Kim D. Petersen 15:01, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

{{Pseudoscience]] is used to describe a field, method or paper that pretends to be scientific but does not follow the scientific method. It can be fraud as well, so the concepts definitely overlap. The other issue is scientific misconduct. I think it is clear both data selection and withholding are misconduct, but I am unclear on how it all sorts out and what the penalties may be. RonCram 14:28, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Connolley's insistance of personal attack (as defined by WMC & co)

Just thought you would like it for future reference. On the RfD WMC put a personal attack on the top (disguised as a 'reminder' to the closing admin to watch you for canvassing). As is typical of him and his gaggle the claim intentionally excludes the relevant exceptions, so I put them in.

WMC reverted (in line with his 'delete what I don't like' mentality). I put it back up and within 4 minutes he again placed the personal attack against you: [32].

Just FYI. -- Tony 15:30, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

No Tony, I put the canvas tag up first time around. WMC was correct in maintaining it (although looking at the above comments about mountains and molehills come to mind) --BozMo talk 16:17, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I stand corrected...the origination of the tag was from BozMo. It still stands that WMC reverted what would have balanced an unnecessary in the header by providing an applicable exception that could apply. It fascinates me the level of double-standards held by BozMo, WMC, et al. Tell the admin how to canvass but assume the admin already knows of exceptions that are allowed...blogs are reliable sources for one POV and even news services are "hopelessly biased" if it is not in goosestep lock-step with the POV of the Global Warming owners. I would fully expect to play poker with that cast of characters and have them say their had with 3 hearts and 2 spades is a full house but everyone else's 3 Kings and 2 Queens is only a three of a kind. That is how ridiculous the double-standards by the GW owners are. -- Tony 21:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)
I certainly would never agree to play poker with you ;) --BozMo talk 11:19, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hockey stick, sharing data and computer codes

I thought you could be interested in this paper by John Christy : [33] Regards --Childhood's End 13:24, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. It was a good read. RonCram 14:04, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Data sharing DYK

Hi, I've nominated an article you worked on, Data sharing (Science), for consideration to appear on the Main Page as part of Wikipedia:Did you know. You can see the "hook" for the article at Template talk:Did you know#Articles created on April 21 where you can improve it if you see fit.

A very comprehensive article too, good stuff!

| Verisimilus T 15:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] DYK

Updated DYK query On 25 April 2007, Did you know? was updated with a fact from the article Data sharing, which you created or substantially expanded. If you know of another interesting fact from a recently created article, then please suggest it on the "Did you know?" talk page.

--ALoan (Talk) 13:15, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] COI discussion closed

RonCram, I have closed the COI discussion you initiated on William M. Connolley because it was evident that the discussion would not lead to a consensus behind your position; indeed, everyone who commented there disagreed with you, and several people, including myself, felt that you were editing disruptively to make a point. In the event that you disagree with this closure, I suggest that you post at WP:ANI for a review of my action; on the other hand, if you want to persist in raising your concerns about William M. Connolley's editing, I suggest you open a user conduct RfC (WP:RFC/USER). Discussion about the content of Hockey stick controversy belongs at that article's talk page, of course. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:03, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You closed the discussion too early. This was a classic open and shut case as it was Connolley's second offence. All of Connolley's friends showed up but the editors who supported me last time did not even learn of the COIN posting yet. Even Durova did not get a chance to comment before you closed it. Regarding WP:ANI, I do not know the process and frankfully doubt it would be worth learning. Larry Sanger has called Wikipedia "an often dysfunctional community" with good reason. As I understand it, COIN is not a consensus process. The purpose is to remind people of the rules so they do not continue to violate them. Closing the case without reminding Connolley that he is subject to the same guidelines as everyone else seems ridiculous to me. RonCram 01:24, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
RonCram, the problem here is that no one in the discussion thought that William was violating "the rules" except for you. It's true that other editors with an axe to grind against him might have shown up and agreed with you, but really, what good would that have accomplished? That discussion would have never achieved a consensus that there was a conflict of interest, and as it stood there was a strong consensus that there was no conflict of interest.
At any rate, please note that I and several other editors in the thread not only considered your allegations baseless, but found them so off the mark as to constitute possible harassment and disruptive editing. Please refrain from starting such groundless discussions in the future, as they will not be viewed kindly. --Akhilleus (talk) 01:54, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
The problem is that you closed the discussion when only the pro-AGWers were present. In parliamentary terms, the community did not have a quorum. Again, you mention consensus and as I pointed out above, COIN is not a consensus process. A vote is not taken, the rules are applied. Or, at least that is the way it is supposed to work. The COIN notice was not groundless as Durova found in my favor last time. Your conclusion was baseless. I think now I will consider WP:ANI. RonCram 05:08, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If it's not a vote, no "quorum" is required. You failed to demonstrate that there was any rule-breaking. And clearly, you don't understand what Durova wrote in the first case, especially the part where she said, "it is not my opinion that meaningful impropriety exists..." Feel free to post on ANI. --Akhilleus (talk) 05:26, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Akhilleus, I used a parliamentary term to point out the ridiculousness of your talk about consensus when you know full well that a number of editors agreed with me at the first COI. I do not consider you an objective judge in the matter. Your comments indicate you do not understand the issues involved. RonCram 05:50, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] RC

Ron - I'm interested in your edit comment here [34]. Your position is that RC is a sufficiently reliable source that anything it mentions is automatically notable? William M. Connolley 21:00, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

LOL, no, of course not. RC is a PR website, but the fact they felt the need to respond to it shows that it is notable. If it was not notable, they could have safely ignored it. RonCram 21:05, 25 May 2007 (UTC)


[edit] April was the coolest April in 46 years (nope)

Hi Ron. Over here you claimed that April was the coolest April in 46 years. Do you have any source for that? The number suggests that it comes from here, but a) if you read it exactly, this is saying something very different and b) it is talking about US temperatures only. Over here it was extremely warm and dry. See e.g. here. In central England, is was the warmest April and the warmest 12 months period since temperature recording began 350 years ago. I've been suffering from hay fever since February...normally its mid-March. --Stephan Schulz 21:27, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

With the proviso that monthly temperature anomalies aren't especially meaningful -- according to the CRU data, April 2007 was the third-warmest April in the instrumental record[35]. Raymond Arritt 21:37, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Wow. It appears you are correct. I thought I was reading global temperature anomalies. May is also cooler than usual here in Southern Cal, about five degrees cooler than normal. It has been this way for two weeks. RonCram 21:42, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ron, now you write "The stat I was referring to relates to North American temperature anomalies and I thought it was referring to global temp. " If you rely on data from NCDC, they say it's the 47th coldest April in the last 113 years (in the US), i.e. slightly colder than the median. It says nothing about the relationship to the preceeding 46 years (unless you sort by temperature, of course). --Stephan Schulz 21:54, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
I believe I was reading a different web page belonging to GISS. I do not recall now. RonCram 22:13, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Re: Unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record

Your links do raise a few interesting points. But it seems to me that they're graphs of different things. The first one peaks at 55F in '35 and '98. The second one peaks at around 48F. I don't know enough about where these graphs come from to know why the axes are so different. Furthermore, even if you and I were to believe that this record was somehow tampered with, you've been around WP long enough to know that we'd need reliable sources that say so, otherwise any mention of it is WP:OR. If you're able to find such evidence, I will work alongside you to get this info on global warming controversy and on temperature record. However, we need sources to do this. Oren0 18:40, 9 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I should have read the titles of the images. One is an annual temp graph and the 2007 only covers Jan through May, the colder months. However, unwarranted adjustments to the temperature record have occurred. I learned of this on ClimateAudit. See Comment 15 here.[36] Also, check this out [37] and this. [38] Compare the 1930s to the 1990s in the older version of the graph and the newer version. When GISS was contacted about this, they took those images off of their website. I thought I had found some similar images that had not been scrubbed, but I did not read the titles. The other issue of poor quality land surface stations has legs also and this is related to the unwarranted adjustments. The GISS says some of the adjustments are due to "rural cooling" effect (which is really just a way to try to hide the urban heat island effect). But the problem is these rural sites seem to have their own warming bias due to land use changes and other non-climatic heating factors. I do hope you will help me research this and improve the articles. RonCram 00:15, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] AfD

Hi, I'm contacting you because you previously voted on the AfD for The Intelligence Summit. I am contacting everyone who voted on that AfD regardless of how they voted. Someone re-created the article and it is again up for deletion -- if you have any input, please add it to [this page]. Thank you! csloat 21:11, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] National Intelligence Estimates

Is this at all different from a National Intelligence Estimate? If not, I'll merge your article into the other one because WP:NAME prefers the singular, but there doesn't appear to be any overlap in the current content of the articles. Please advise. Savidan 23:31, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hello Again

Hi Ron! Thanks for the welcome. I had a great time on Rhodes, and I won both volleyball and archery competitions (among more-or-less sedate tourists, so not a big deal, but good for my ego ;-).

I'll answer the substance over there when I find a bit more time. But do you know that one major part of peer review is to reject bad papers? At least in my field, beween 50% and over 90% of papers (depending on the venue) are rejected (and that is after editors/program chairs weed out obvious crap and cranks). That is why I won't consider any system where the author has final say over the publication as (scientific) peer review. Peer review is both adversial (the reviewer is looking for flaws) and cooperative (if he consider the paper to be basically sound and valuable, then he or she may suggest how to improve it). --Stephan Schulz 12:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, congrats on your wins! Yes, of course I know that reviewers can advise not to publish. Editors make a decision based on this advice. What makes you think that is not also true of the open review system? RonCram 13:20, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
From http://www.forecastingprinciples.com/Public_Policy/global_warming_audit.html: "Scott Armstrong will present the Armstrong and Green paper at a keynote session at the International Symposium on Forecasting on Wednesday June 27 at 11:45 in the Olmstead Room of the Marriott Hotel on Times Square.[...] Peer review and independent audits are welcome." (emphasis mine), which to me very much indicates that the paper will be presented, regardless of the outcome of the ongoing peer review/audit. From the website it is entirely unclear if the paper has any invited reviewers, and who is handling the editorial process. --Stephan Schulz 14:10, 25 June 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, that is pretty common. Papers are presented and comments invited, but the presentation is not the same as publication. Although, based on Armstrong's reputation and contribution to scientific forecasting, I think the likelihood of publication is somewhere close to 99.7% +/- 0.005%. How's that for a scientific forecast? :) If you put in enough signficant figs, someone will be convinced! Truly though, I do think it will be published (with some minor changes). This does kind of limit the journals it will be published in, either IJF or Foresight. Both are published by IIF. RonCram 14:45, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Black Helicoptors and libel on Talk:Scientists opposing the mainstream scientific assessment of global warming

This comment is simply not acceptable, and i've cut it according to WP:TALK#Editing_comments. While you may have these opinions yourself - you can't just libel people in this way. Your insistant harping on the "censored" bit is also getting tiring and has been answered on quite a few occasions. Conspiracy theories etc. are something for other media - not for the article or talk pages here - unless they are very well documented in reliable sources - these are extraordinary claims - and would require extraordinary sources (as per WP:REDFLAG). --Kim D. Petersen 16:11, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Kim, there is no libel involved. I provided a reliable source, the Dutch science magazine. Raymond raised the same issue on BLP noticeboard and no one had a problem with my pointing out that Mann did not make this known because I had a reliable source. I am restoring it to the Talk page. RonCram 16:18, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
And that explains calling scientists "activists" and "pseudoscientists", making claims about funding etc.? No it doesn't. Thats is libel. Now please cease this. As for BLP - noone actually agreed with you either - so i have trouble seeing your point. --Kim D. Petersen 17:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Just to be clear here: the comments about RC and its people is libel (and a direct attack at a contributing editor (WMC)) - the comments on the "censored" bit is black helicoptors. Differentiate please. --Kim D. Petersen 17:39, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Michael Mann is (libelous comments redacted per WP:BLP). My comment is not libelous. However, my comment was not intended to paint all contributors with exactly the same brush. Your comment that I should differentiate is well-received. I do not know about Connolley's archiving or data sharing habits. In the future, if you think I have misstated the facts, please be more specific - such as you were in these last posts. That way I can correct posts which should be stated more precisely. Your comment about black helicopters makes you lose credibility. I am simply retelling a story from a well recognized and respected popular science magazine. RonCram 18:03, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
The activist claim may be considered opinion (albeit an absurd one, looking at Mann's research profile and standing). The pseudoscientist claim, on the other hand, is pure derogatory nonsense, supported by not a single reliable source, but only by your personal conjecture, based on a flawed definition of pseudoscience shared by you alone and applied to a gross misrepresentation of the facts. I suggest you take Raymond's comment below to heart. --Stephan Schulz 19:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, I think you are aware of the issues around Mann's policy not to archive data and his refusal to provide his data and methods when it is requested. I believe you are also aware this lack of openness is described as Pseudoscience. My opinion of Mann is based on these facts and the content of the CENSORED folder. You may disagree but I do not see how you can expect me to hold Mann in high regard. In my opinion, the majority of informed (non-climate) scientists do not think highly of Mann's actions. RonCram 21:34, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] FYI

Per WP:BLP:

Editors should remove any contentious material about living persons that is unsourced, relies upon sources that do not meet standards specified in Wikipedia:Verifiability, or is a conjectural interpretation of a source (see Wikipedia:No original research). Where the material is derogatory and unsourced or poorly sourced, the three-revert rule does not apply. These principles apply to biographical material about living persons found anywhere in Wikipedia, including user and talk pages. Administrators may enforce the removal of such material with page protection and blocks, even if they have been editing the article themselves. Editors who re-insert the material may be warned and blocked. See the blocking policy and Wikipedia:Libel.

(Emphasis added.) Just wanted to make sure you were aware of the policy. Raymond Arritt 19:01, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond, I am aware of the policy. Mann has consistently attempted to block access to his data and methods. By (redact libel per WP:BLP) I am only applying the description found at Pseudoscience. Are you saying this description is not a reliable source? Or is there some other issue at stake here? RonCram 21:22, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
No, Wikipedia does not consider itself (or wikis in general) as a reliable source. Surely you know such a basic policy? Raymond Arritt 21:28, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Moreover, the definition of pseudoscience in our article is "Pseudoscience is any body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that claims to be scientific or is made to appear scientific, but does not adhere to the basic requirements of the scientific method". Data sharing is part of scientific culture, but not a basic requirement the scientific method. You can do perfectly good science if you are alone on an island. So even under your misapprehension about data sharing, this fails. --Stephan Schulz 21:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, let's not argue over semantics here. The description reads: Pseudosciences may be characterised by the use of vague, exaggerated or untestable claims, over-reliance on confirmation rather than refutation, lack of openness to testing by other experts, and a lack of progress in theory development. This clearly describes Mann's actions and the actions of others on the "Hockey Team." RonCram 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Raymond, I was not aware Wikipedia does not allow editors to use Wikipedia articles to support their claims on Talk pages. I see it done all the time. But no matter. The sources quoted by Pseudoscience are reliable sources and they are all in agreement. As I stated before, I am only applying the description (supported by reliable sources) that has already been accepted by the Wikipedia community. RonCram 21:42, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
If you guys want me to rephrase my statements so that I sound like a lawyer, I can do that. I think it sounds boring but I am willing to go along. RonCram 21:46, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Ron, we are talking about semantics here. You do not have a reliable source that calls Mann a pseudoscientist. You do have sources, the reliability of which we have different opions about, describing some of Mann's behaviour. You now try to apply a description to deduce your result. That's a poster example of original research. And its wrong. You confuse cause and symptom. Limping is a frequent symptom of gout. But I may limp because someone dropped a bowling ball on my foot. Lack of openness is a frequent syptom of pseudoscience. But some scientists may be less that forthcoming with their data due to reasons of national security, or because some Canadians have already written 5 hatchet job papers about them and have overstayed their welcome.--Stephan Schulz 22:29, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, I appreciate you expressing your opinion. But openness is a requirement of science, not an option. A lack of openness is the behavior of a pseudoscientist. I do not know how many papers McI and McK wrote (if any) before Mann quit providing data, but it does not matter. He has to continue to provide data regardless. Try telling the tax authority in your country that you are going to quit providing data for your audit because you were convicted of tax fraud once before. That will not go over well. Alarmists like Mann have to realize skeptics will continue to be skeptical as long as the science is being sloppily done without proper archiving and openness. RonCram 22:35, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Your Comments on Talk:Luboš Motl

You wrote:

SC, what is the point of this post? The Talk page is supposed to be about making the article better. You are not suggesting anything to make the article better but are merely trying to convince people of a rumor. Academia's rumor mill is no better than the internet's rumor mill. This is a misuse of Wikipedia. It could get get you disciplined, blocked or banned. Worse, Wikipedia or you could get sued. RonCram 06:13, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

And I replied:

As someone who knows both academia and Wikipedia policy reasonably well, I was trying to inform people about the situation we're dealing with; there's a difference between 1) likely true, but unverifiable as of yet, and 2) a silly rumor. That seems relevant to how we deal with the article. I have more to say about your comment on your talk page momentarily—but the short version for those who are reading this is your last two sentences are false and I sincerely hope you don't use this kind of heavy-handed bullying on new users who might fall for it. -- SCZenz 06:27, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Now let me expand on my remarks a bit. You seem to be someone who knows Wikipedia policy pretty well, and as such if you think someone else doesn't, it is incumbent upon you to explain why someone is doing something wrong, rather than simply threatening. That means linking to the policies you claim someone has violated. So here are two for you:

  • You should assume good faith. As it happens, I wasn't trying to use the talk page as a rumor mill, as I've explained. Your assumed I was, and threatened me with all manner of consequences.
  • You should be civil. Even if someone is breaking the rules, even if you think they're doing it on purpose you owe them more time spent explaining and less time ranting about their "misuse" and its consequences--especially for a first offense!

Now that I've explained myself, please clarify under what policy I could be "disciplined, blocked or banned" under. If you truly believe that I am exposing Wikipedia to legal risk, please contact Wikipedia's General Counsel by email and ask him to clarify the situation privately. — SCZenz 06:41, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

I was civil. I did not call you any names or use bad language. I checked your contributions and you are not a newby so I expected you to know the guidelines. Your post violated WP:BLP. The policy clearly says:
Editors must take particular care adding biographical material about a living person to any Wikipedia page. Such material requires a high degree of sensitivity, and must adhere strictly to the law in Florida, United States (copyright, libel, privacy) and to our content policies
Perhaps you did not know the policy applies to the Talk pages. If that is true, you know it now. I would advise you to go to the Talk page and delete your comment and mine. It is the right thing to do. RonCram 14:02, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
I didn't know how strongly WP:BLP applies to talk pages (as I edit few biographies), and I certainly see now that WP:BLP allows anyone to remove inappropriate information from talk pages. However, I don't see how any of the discussion of available/appropriate sources for that particular rumor was libelous, insensitive, or in violation of the law. If you think any talk page material is inappropriate, including mine, go ahead and remove it according to policy. You could also ask a third party to review the text and remove it if appropriate at the BLP noticeboard; I'll certainly welcome clarification of how the policy is understood to apply in this case by third parties.
One thing you're confused about is the consequences for violating WP:BLP; blocks under that policy are only for repeated, deliberate disruption. I don't see much evidence that could let one argue I'm guilty of that. Thus your first step should have been to remove my comment and leave a polite note on my talk page explaining that my comment violated policy and that you therefore removed it.
Regarding your civility, I would first invite you to reconsider the spirit of the civility policy, rather than your very narrow interpretation as "call[ing] names" or "[using] bad language." If that doesn't help you understand what's wrong with threatening a user who's trying to contribute positively (but may have violated policy in the process) please take a look at the letter of the civility policy, in particular Wikipedia:Civility#Examples: "more serious examples include . . . calling for blocks or bans."
I doubt very much that further discussion will lead anywhere in this case, but I do hope and expect that you will avoid threats for first-time, possibly-inadvertent policy violations in the future. From blocking policy, "blocks are used to prevent damage or disruption to Wikipedia"; they're certainly not a hammer to insure compliance. Except in the case of blatant, deliberate vandalism, I never even mention blocks on the first offense. -- SCZenz 14:24, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Actions that are known to bring lawsuits can cause "damage or disruption to Wikipedia." I am trying to do you a favor by asking you to remove the post yourself. I have explained that it violates Wikipedia policy. By removing the post yourself, you are showing good faith. If you do not remove it, I will. But if Motl decides to sue, that leaves you with greater legal exposure. I really am trying to help you here. RonCram 14:29, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
Sue me for what? Making comments on one website about the accuracy of a rumor on another website? If you think I've done something so dangerous to Wikipedia, why don't you ask for a third party to review the situation at the BLP noticeboard (as I suggested above) rather than using threats to get me to do what you want? Trying to force another user into submission is not doing anyone a favor.
I'm not saying you're wrong about the talk page comment; it looks a bit too speculative when I consider it again. I won't contest its removal. But policy is not a hammer for getting another user to admit you're right; stop using it that way. -- SCZenz 14:39, 9 August 2007 (UTC)
You think I'm trying to use it as a hammer to get you to admit I'm right? GEEZ. I was trying to teach you something so you will not make a mistake like that again. Have you ever been sued? You can be sued for anything, whether the suit has merit or not. It's a hassle and expensive. Even if the other person has no chance of winning, you still have to hire a lawyer and defend yourself. And it is the same for Wikipedia - a hassle and expensive. In this case, we do not know the facts. You might even lose if he sued you. I was trying to help you out by asking you to remove the offending material yourself. Doing so would have shown a good faith effort not to harm. You probably could have gotten the suit dismissed during the discovery phase. Too late for that. I have removed it myself. Honestly, I doubt Motl will sue. But if he is still at Harvard and chooses to, it will be expensive for you now. RonCram 15:07, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Talk:Global warming controversy

Hi Ron: please stop psychoanalyzing other editors. [39][40] It doesn't help improve the article. Discuss the content, not the contributors. --Nethgirb 20:57, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Nethgirb, I fail to see that I have done anything wrong. I was discussing the article and the thought processes editors should be using to make certain the article is NPOV. I certainly was not psychoanalyzing them. I never asked about their relationship to their mother or asked if they were abused by their uncle. If you truly think there is something wrong with my comments, direct me to a guideline that explains what was wrong. My comments were along the line discussed in WP:WFTE. RonCram 02:27, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, WP:WFTE (which says it's useful to explain the arguments of the opposing side) is roughly the opposite of what you were suggesting (that you and WMC shouldn't get to write the portion of the article that deals with your respective opposing sides). The principle Comment on content, not on the contributor is from WP:NPA. I don't think what you said was a personal attack, but the principal applies. I'm not suggesting that you violated any particular policy; just that your comments were unhelpful. If you need more explanation, you might get an opinion from an uninvolved admin. --Nethgirb 06:12, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, I appreciate the fact you clarified that I have not violated any policy. I disagree that my comments were unhelpful. I think my comments helped people to see things from a different perspective which is usually helpful. If people feel so strongly about an issue that they cannot write and explain the other viewpoint, the least they can do is allow the other side to speak for themselves. Suppression of information deemed crucial to the other side is not the way to achieve an NPOV article. RonCram 13:09, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The way I see it, you are suggesting that some editors on the AGW side are biased and hence can't appropriately represent the other side in the article. You are then suggesting balancing that group of editors' POV edits with your own personal POV, since as a GW skeptic, you feel you can act as a representative of global warming skeptics at large in the public/scientific debate.
I can understand that you feel frustrated with what you see as bias among the other editors—we all feel that way. But even if there is POV bias among the AGW editors, this is the wrong way to fix the problem. Two wrongs don't make a right. Instead of suggesting that some editors be shut out of part of the article, it would be better to focus on the content that you feel is unfairly represented and justify your position. In particular, the facts that you deem this information to be crucial, and that you happen to be a GW skeptic, are not enough to make it notable. --Nethgirb 01:56, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Nethgirb, if someone told me that my view that AGW is built on faulty science was preventing me from being fair to the position, I would reevaluate my actions. If someone said I should not attempt to silence another viewpoint as long as it was supported by a reliable source, I would stop. Yet this does not happen when I ask the same of others. Let me ask you a question. Where should Wikipedia readers go if they wanted to know the scientific evidence for and against AGW? What article would be the most likely or suitable article for this to be found? Now that you have the article in mind, what would it take - think in terms of the strongest possible evidence necessary - to get Wikipedia editors to accept this info into the article? This is where I find myself. The most obvious article is one on the controversy around global warming science. What is the strongest evidence possible? Peer-reviewed papers. So I present peer-reviewed papers and editors still want to suppress the information. There is no way you can consider this article NPOV if peer-reviewed papers from the anti-AGW camp are not discussed. Don't you see that? RonCram 03:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
First off, let me say that most of your comments here I think are productive discussion since you are talking about the content, and I see where you're coming from and you deserve a response. I agree with you that GWC should have a discussion of scientific challenges to GW... and yes, peer-reviewed research is a reliable source. The only question is whether this particular paper is sufficiently notable for inclusion. Although I suggested the applying "two independent sources" rule, that doesn't mean I think it shouldn't be included; actually, I haven't decided. --Nethgirb 04:13, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
And what would convince you it is sufficiently notable? RonCram 04:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

(shifting left) Scientifically speaking, criticism or support from other peer-reviewed publications, which requires some time. After skimming the paper, it seems that Schwartz himself views this work as preliminary and in need of verification: "Here an initial attempt is made to determine climate sensitivity through energy balance considerations ... [The fact that the results are surprising] invites a scrutiny of the each of these findings for possible sources of error of interpretation in the present study. ... Finally, as the present analysis rests on a simple single-compartment energy balance model, the question must inevitably arise whether the rather obdurate climate system might be amenable to determination of its key properties through empirical analysis based on such a simple model. In response to that question it might have to be said that it remains to be seen. In this context it is hoped that the present study might stimulate further work along these lines with more complex models." This coupled with Annan's criticism would mean that if it were mentioned in the GWC article, it would have to be a very weak statement. --Nethgirb 22:02, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

I agree that Schwartz's paper needs verification/auditing. It may contain errors, but Annan is wrong and has already been refuted on Pielke's blog. Scwartz's findings are in line with other research and explains some other unusual findings. RonCram 17:02, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Where is Annan wrong and where has he been refuted? I looked over the Blog and could find no serious challenge to his analysis. --Stephan Schulz 17:16, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Annan claimed Schwartz made two errors. The criticism of Annan I found most compelling was by JamesG in Comments #18 and #26. (JamesG also responds to me in #30.) [41] Annan replies to JamesG in Comment #33 in which he admits an error but basically claims it does not matter. Annan did not address the postulation issue. To summarize: Annan wrote that Schwartz's first error was in the math and yet Annan got the math wrong himself. Annan claimed Schwartz made a second error because he disagreed with a postulation by Schwartz. The postulation may or may not prove to be right but it is wrong to claim it is an error. If Schwartz is correct, it would explains some things - such as why the climate models are consistently too warm. RonCram 00:29, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Sorry, Ron, but you have the most selective reading ability I have ever seen. The maths is wrong. The estimated relaxtion constant is wrong as well, and we can easily see why: The auto-correlation feature massively overemphasizes short-term fluctuation which primarily affect the atmosphere. It ignores longer time effects of the deep ocean where most of the heat capacity of the system is. No wonder the result is nonsense. --Stephan Schulz 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Stephan, I should mention that if Watts, Pielke and McIntyre are correct in the idea the global surface station network may be overestimating the warming trend, then the climate sensitivity is even less than estimated by Schwartz. Schwartz's view gives more weight to natural climate variability.RonCram 00:52, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
Even if that were true (which I deeply doubt), it would not make Schwartz's paper any more correct. --Stephan Schulz 07:36, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, Schwartz may or may not have made an error in the math. I am not certain yet. But even if he did, it is not a large error and will not change his results much. More importantly, when Watts, Pielke and McIntyre are finished with the global temperature record, the CO2 sensitivity will be seen as even less. The relaxation constant favored by Annan is more a tenet of the AGW faith than it is a fact. Schwartz's view gives nature a larger role in climate variability and this meshes much better with physical reality. Take 1934, the hottest year in the U.S. I understand it was also the hottest year in Europe, so probably the hottest year in the Northern Hemisphere. The surface station network in the Southern Hemisphere is not as robust as the Northern. Since 1934, we have had a great deal of UHI effect in the Southern Hemisphere. This has not been adjusted for by GISS or CRU. When we are all done analyzing the global temp record, 1934 may be the hottest year globally. Why would 1934 be so hot when it had so much less CO2? Could it be natural climate variability? Why yes! it could! Where is this naturally variability coming from? From the oceans, to a large degree. The PDO is the most underestimated climate variable IMHO. When it is in the warm phase, the world gets warmer. When it is in a cool phase, the world gets cooler. This is true regardless of what CO2 is doing. But there are many other factors we just learning about. According to Spencer's new paper, the tropics have a significant negative feedback. It is not me who has the selective reading problem. It is the IPCC and the rest of the AGWers who are neglecting the negative feedbacks and the evidence surface temperatures are artificially warm. RonCram 13:00, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

Stephan, if climate was as sensitive to CO2 as Annan thinks, the upper tropical troposphere would show the greatest warming. Check out this image. [42] I just do not see any evidence of CO2 being a primary driver of anything here. RonCram 13:06, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject:Terrorism

Greetings,

I was hoping I could get some input from you, about the proposed mergerof Wikipedia:WikiProject Terrorism and counter-terrorism with Wikiproject:Terrorism. It seems there's a lot of overlap between the two projects, and if we spent a few days merging the lists of articles, sharing ideas and collaborating on improving the same articles which both projects are focused on improving...we could really make some headway. Whether you're in favour, or against, the idea of a merger - I'd appreciate some feedback regardless. Much thanks. Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 21:32, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks

Hi Ron, just wanted to thank you for taking my joke in stride [43]. I appreciate that you can keep your cool. Now back to battling it out on the talk page. :-) --Nethgirb 22:33, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Nethgirb. I have a fairly good sense of humor. BTW, you know the example I gave works.:) RonCram 23:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 3RR

Ron you could actually have gotten over 3RR there (which was why i wrote the comment) - your first insertion of the Pielke item is a revert of earlier.... (i had forgotten that it was more than 24 hours ago). I just wanted to state that i wasn't assuming bad faith. It was meant friendly. --Kim D. Petersen 15:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Ron, I see you've had your problems with KDP too. Look here to see her go ballistic when I tagged her 3RR violation: Reversions.
"Friendly", MFA. But it looks like I might win this one: Hansen's Nazi slurs. Your comments there are welcome!
Cheers, Pete Tillman (talk) 19:19, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Nice rewrite of history Pete - but you failed to mention that you broke 3RR first! Which was why i went "ballistic", when you tried to chide me. Btw. I'm male. (Kim is actually more a male or a surname than a female name).
And while Ron and i have "clashed" quite a few times, with differing opinions - i don't think that any of us have any animosity towards each other.--Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:08, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Emeritus

Hello, the first diff and the second one. Those talk pages can get long and following everything is hard! Good day, Brusegadi 21:15, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for providing the link. It does say "custumarily given" but it also says "However, not all retiring persons receive that rank." This is my point. Not every retiring prof is an Emeritus Professor. It seems as though Brown is a little looser with the title than the universities I have been associated with, the title is not granted universally. It is a title of honor. RonCram 00:11, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Indeed the practice does vary. Nonetheless, you should email those clueless rubes at Harvard[44], MIT[45], Stanford[46], etc. and tell them they've got it all wrong about this emeritus thing, and that they need to correct their faculty handbooks pronto. No doubt they'll appreciate it. Raymond Arritt 00:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
I dont think the practice varies as much as the formality with which these rules are written. At least at Brown, customary means that it always happens, the wording is the usual contract clause design to create an umbrella under which all else falls. If you read the link provided to for Brown, you will see that at some point, even before the definition of Emeritus, the term is used interchangeably with retired... Brusegadi 04:01, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Thanks for trying

Thanks for trying to make Abortion-breast cancer hypothesis a little less blatantly POV-biased.

You are entirely right: it is absurd to characterize the ABC link as unsupported, in an article which discusses its supporters. Of course, IronAngelAlice immediately reverted you, just like she did Rossnixon. But thank you for trying. NCdave (talk) 06:02, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wikiproject Terrorism Newsletter

The Terrorism WikiProject
April 2008 Newsletter

News
Archives • Discussion

Sherurcij (Speaker for the Dead) 05:47, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Unacceptable

"Your repeating the claim they are not competent is not valid and you know it."[47] That's an accusation of premeditated lying. You've pulled this kind of nonsense too many times and need to be held to account for it. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, I apologize if you took it to mean I was accusing you of lying. I was not. I was accusing you of double-think. You were attempting to discredit A&G even though you know full well he is the founding editor of two scientific journals on forecasting and that his book is used as a textbook on the subject. I believe if you had thought to produce evidence to convince me he is incompetent, you would have had to confront your own double-think. For that reason, you chose to avoid attempting to show any evidence and went with the bald and unsupported assertion. My comment that you know he is competent was my effort to make you confront the evidence of his expertise. RonCram (talk) 19:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Accusing someone of "double-think" is no better than accusing them of lying (see Non-apology apology). I will no longer address any point that you raise, since you refuse to extend the assumption of good faith. Raymond Arritt (talk) 20:38, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
"Double-think" is a fact of the human condition. We are all guilty of it on occasion. It is not a moral issue or an issue of bad faith. For you to be offended that I "accused" you of it is almost comical. I invite you to call me on it whenever you see me doing the same thing. RonCram (talk) 20:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't matter whether you aren't offended by being called a liar (or double-thinker). What matters here is that you just accused someone else of being it. It makes the same logical sense as: "I personally don't mind being called an asshole - so i often call other people assholes". --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:04, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, you are being non-sensical. Being called a "double-thinker," as you put it, is equivalent of a man being called a "man" or a woman being called a "woman." There is nothing insulting about it. We ALL, at times, hold two contrary views at the same time. We are all double-thinkers whether you like the idea or not. It has nothing to do with the intelligence of a person or whether or not they are acting in bad faith. It means they have not yet recognized and resolved the situation in their own minds. Raymond's refusal to address the situation is a textbook example of double-think. He is seeking to avoid the confrontation of the two conflicting views. Since I insisted he confront them, he has decided to avoid me as well. If you have not studied double-think in the past, you should. I think you would find it very enlightening. And so would William. RonCram (talk) 21:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
And you are continuing on the same line.... (sigh). Try fixing this simple concept in your head: Don't call people double-thinkers unless you yourself can be absolutely 100% sure that you are not guilty of the same thing. And if you really are 100% sure - then I can assure you that you are almost 100% certain of being wrong. (and yes i know the psychological concept). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 21:45, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, you are missing the point entirely. I'm not sure how that is happening. You write: Don't call people double-thinkers unless you yourself can be absolutely 100% sure that you are not guilty of the same thing. But that is the point. I am a double-thinker. I catch myself at it occasionally. And other times other people catch me at it. That is the point. We are ALL double-thinkers, at times. I'm not sure how this concept is confusing you. At any rate, being a double-thinker is not a moral issue or bad faith. It is, however, something people need the courage to confront in themselves. It is not always easy. RonCram (talk) 22:10, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Ron, you are double-thinking right now. You are trying to convince yourself that its alright to call other people liars, because its must be obvious that they are only lying to themselves. And you are apparently the judge.
No matter how you slice or dice it. Either you are outright calling people liars or you are saying that they are lying to themselves (and not being intelligent enough to catch it). Thats downright rude and uncivil. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:30, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, what you are accusing me of is not double-think. For it to be double-think, you have to point out that I am holding two conflicting ideas at the same time. I have clearly said I did not and am not calling Raymond a liar. Raymond knows Armstrong was the co-founder of two scientific journals on forecasting. He knows Armstrong has published extensively on the subject. Armstrong would be recognized as an expert witness on scientific forecasting in any court in the U.S. Yet Raymond claimed Armstrong was not competent. Those two views are contradictory. The interface between two conflicting views sometimes has a fuzzy rationale (as it probably did with Raymond) and sometimes people do not even understand the two views are contradictory. You are under the impression this reflects poorly on Raymond's intelligence. It does not. All of the literature shows this happens with people of all education levels and economic levels. It is part of the human condition. Seeking to avoid the confrontation between the views is also very common, especially when the two views are strongly held. Note how Raymond has retired from the conversation even though you press on?
Ron, you are double-thinking. And trying to explain it away. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 23:28, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Kim, you have made the claim that I am double thinking but you have not identified what two views I hold that are contrary to each other. For that reason, I have not tried to explain my behavior at all. My last post was to explain to you what double think looks like using Raymond as a textbook example. RonCram (talk) 00:42, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Global Warming Controversy

RonCram, after looking at the archives in global warming controversy it seems that you do your research well. I'm not skilled in the area of global warming, and would like some back up for a particular thing. The information from both this and this should be included on the page global warming controversy. After reading the archives, I wouldn't stand a chance going in there, but I have one card. I know Lord Monckton. After reading this blog (which is what William posted to your first response) I wrote him and asked him his opinion. He responded by answering each topic addressed in the blog specifically. It's quite a long response so I will only post what he sent me with your permission. What I wanted was to be able to address these topics in the forum and have them posted to the article, but I would need your help. Please let me know what you think. InfoNation101 | talk | 17:35, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for the kind words. Work has kept me very busy lately and will for a while yet. I promise to take a look at this in detail at a later date. You are not feeling any time pressure on this, are you? RonCram (talk) 02:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No time pressure. The extra time would allow me to get everything together that I would need to present the argument. Let me know when you would be most capable to work on this and we'll go from there. InfoNation101 | talk | 18:40, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SOAP

Ron, you've been notified that the talk-pages aren't your personal soapbox, and to adhere to the guidelines in WP:TALK, numerous times.. I cut the following:

Raymond, you are living in Fantasyland. Climate scientists would like to think Green and Armstrong are not notable, but people are beginning to demand higher level of work than climate scientists have been putting out. Validation and verification of the climate models is beginning to happen and the GCMs are not doing well. Even if they were, they cannot ignore the forecasting principles discovered and described by the scientific forecasting community. I have emailed several climate scientists. Most of them had not heard of scientific forecasting but the honest ones were open to making climate forecasts better. Richard Lindzen supports these principles and they will become used more. RonCram (talk) 15:25, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

A lot of insubstatiated assertions, that have absolutely no place here. Please try to focus on what reliable sources say, instead of on what you believe. Your personal point of view is uninteresting. (all personal POV's are). --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 17:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, if you really think I have violated a rule - cut the parts that offend. By reverting the entire edit, no one will know the evidence for my change to the article. RonCram (talk) 19:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Ron, the problem with the above, is that you are not providing evidence, you are simply asserting. Without any backing for your statements, its simply a claim, and a personal point of view. If i had to cut from the above - then there wouldn't be anything left. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 19:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kim, if you cut every Talk page entry that did not have a citation, you would have very short pages. Most of them do not offer a reference. We are offering our logic and evidence already known. Regarding my change to the article, I mentioned the Acknowledgement section of the E&E paper. But you did not even bother to read it. The second entry was very different from when I just deleted the part that was in error. I did not put any OR in the article. RonCram (talk) 20:03, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
(ec)Ok Ron, Lets test that. - provide a citation for the following sentences:
  • Raymond, you are living in Fantasyland. (simple personal attack) (simple observation)
  • And I thought I lived in Iowa. Why am I paying a mortgage on a house there? If you can explain that, you'd save me a lot of money. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:07, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, at least you have a good sense of humor. I do like that about you! But then Dopey had a good sense of humor too. Didn't he live in Fantasyland as well? RonCram (talk) 01:29, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Haven't seen him round these parts. I think he works as an executive somewhere in Southern California. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I know the place. I drive right by there on my way to work every morning.RonCram (talk) 01:36, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Climate scientists would like to think Green and Armstrong are not notable (where do you get that info?) (from the fact Raymond is a climate scientist and he has already expressed this view and so have Gavin Schmidt and James Annan)
    • Thats 3 people of of how many? You do generalize quite a bit - don't cha'? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Kim, do you really expect climate scientists to have a different opinion. This is their bread and butter we are talking about. This is how they put food on the table. Of course, they want climate research funding to continue to flow at a high level. Find me one global warming scientist who does not hold this opinion.RonCram (talk) 01:27, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Not at all, Raymond. To claim G&A are non-notable is a PR ploy. It is a dodge to avoid the issue. If climate science were really above the principles of scientific forecasting, someone would present an exposition supporting this. This has not been done. This just want to dismiss them with arm waving to keep the funding flowing. RonCram (talk) 01:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Actually this is the opposite of what we'd do if we wanted to keep the funds flowing. If someone could show that we had climate modeling all wrong, then we'd be able to argue for more funds so that we could get it right. And given the societal importance of the problem we'd very likely succeed. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:58, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Nonsense. Continuation of high level of funding is dependent on people being scared. If scientific forecasts were made, people would be less scared and the funding would dry up.RonCram (talk) 07:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • but people are beginning to demand higher level of work than climate scientists have been putting out. (who are people - and where is the evidence? Do you have a poll? Or is this POV?) (I refer to the validation and verification work by Roger Pielke Jr. [48] [49][50]Also, see the blog postings of Willam Biggs[51] and Lucia Liljegren [52] and a number of peer-reviewed articles. [53] [54] [55] [56])
    • Thats a grand total of 16 people. Many of whom had this opinion before. Its a tiny minority of scientists and even more tiny one of people (in general). Try to differentiate between individuals making statements, and a larger community - ok? The relevant WP policy is WP:WEIGHT. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
    • Wait. The GCMs have overpredicted global warming and failed all of these verification tests on tropical troposphere warming and precipitation and everything else and you want to claim WP:WEIGHT. Show me what validation and verification tests the GCMs have passed! You need to read some of these papers, Kim. Honestly. RonCram (talk) 01:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
      • "Thats a grand total of 16 people...Its a tiny minority of scientists and even more tiny one of people (in general)." What an absurd misapplication of WP:WEIGHT. How many people contributed to the latest IPCC report? For the sake of argument, let's say a few thousand. What percentage is that of the millions of scientists in the world? What percentage of the world's population? I guess by your interpretation WP:WEIGHT doesn't allow us to quote the IPCC, right? 16 scientific opinions published in reliable sources are easily enough to warrant inclusion on a page. And more generally, why are you applying mainspace rules about original research, etc to talk pages? Oren0 (talk) 04:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
        • The IPCC is speaking from a position of assessing the literature - not from personal opinion. So its a rather different thing. The 16 people in question are a strange assorted collection of bloggers, statisticians, political scientists and others - who are all expressing their personal opinion, these opinions do not overlap. And apparently it has little traction in media outside of blogs. So WP:WEIGHT is very much the correct application. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 11:06, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Validation and verification of the climate models is beginning to happen and the GCMs are not doing well. (can you cite more than the usual sceptics for this claim?) (See response above)
    • Your responses above are POV - not actual evidence. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:28, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Kim, I have given you links to actual science. Based on real observations and statistics, published in journals not named E&E. This is your assignment, should you decide to accept it - go, read the articles before you type anymore here. Besides I have a date with my wife and can no longer continue the repartee. RonCram (talk) 01:44, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Even if they were, they cannot ignore the forecasting principles discovered (citation from someone other than Armstrong please?)
  • and described by the scientific forecasting community. (citation from someone other than Armstrong please?)(Kim, please. There are four journals dedicated to this science. Hundreds of academics have published in these journals. If you are not going to read, there is no point in providing with citations.)
    • There are 4 journals that Armstrong has been involved in. How come you haven't shown us any other people than Armstrong who have posted opinions about this in those journals? Could it be because those journals in fact are mainly about economics and social sciences? For that matter - why doesn't Armstrong get his papers printed there - instead of in the rather dodgy Energy and Environment? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • I have emailed several climate scientists. (personal views not in any way or form interesting to WP). (I would never put this into the article as it is OR. Still, it provides background that is important for Wikipedia editors to know.)
  • I have emailed several climate scientists too. In fact I email several of them every day. Is that also background that is important for Wikipedia editors to know? Just checking. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:09, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Raymond, you are responding to a sentence fragment. If Kim had not broken the sentence into two parts, it would have made more sense. My response really should have been to the sentence below.RonCram (talk) 01:23, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
  • Most of them had not heard of scientific forecasting but the honest ones were open to making climate forecasts better. (POV and again your WP:OR) (See response above.)
  • Richard Lindzen supports these principles and they will become used more. (citation? And how exactly is it that Lindzen's opinion is relevant, when you say all other climate scientist's opinion isn't?) (This should be easy for you to understand. Guys like James Annan do not want to be proven wrong. Richard Lindzen is one of the few guys who is familiar with Green and Armstrong. Guys like Lindzen want to be proven right. The GCMs have failed every recent validation and verification test in the peer-reviewed journals I listed above. Climate scientists have to find a better way to do things.)
    • You are basing your evidence on personal trust in a few - and general disbelief in many. Thats a personal point of view. And its not relevant for Wikipedia unless you can provide sources that state this point of view - beyond WP:FRINGE. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
As you see - there is nothing left. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
And please - its time you took to heart, that Energy and Environment isn't a reliable source. This has been pointed out numerous times as well. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 20:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Kim, E&E is a reliable source on the views of the scientists who publish there. Even if it was only a blog like RealClimate, that would be true. RS is not the issue. RonCram (talk) 21:27, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Yes - but the opinion of individuals is rather irrelevant. What we need is evidence that their opinion is shared by more than a tiny minority. And for that, we can't use these sources. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 22:21, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
What are you talking about? You keep shifting the goalposts. The article is about Global warming controversy. Part of the controversy involves the way IPCC projections are made. The entire scientific forecasting community would agree with A&G that climate forecasts should be scientific. There are hundreds of academics in this group. RonCram (talk) 00:40, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm talking about weight. You still have to provide adequate sources for your claims - and show that they are notable enough. And you make a couple of rather interesting claims here......
  • "The entire scientific forecasting community would agree with A&G that climate forecasts should be scientific."
    Really? Can you source that? Or is that once more your personal opinion? Define scientific here - try not to use Armstrongs definition.
  • "There are hundreds of academics in this group."
    There probably is hundreds in the forecasting community. But where is your source for them agreeing with Armstrong?
Try to actually focus on what you can show - instead of what you believe. --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 00:57, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Kim, do you really believe scientific forecasters would say "Oh, we think the principles are valid for many fields but not for climate forecasts?" Can you really imagine them saying that? Of course not! If you want to know what the International Institute of Forecasting thinks about scientific forecasts for climate, try going to their website. [57] Once there you will note the fields where they are making a contribution, including "Climate" in big bold letters at the top of the page.RonCram (talk) 01:19, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Ron, i've taken the time to read some of those journals - and contrary to your assertions - they mostly are about methodology, economics and social sciences. (which btw. also is their description on ISI (iirc)). I have no idea what the forecasting community thinks - and neither do you - you are speculating. Forecasting.org has climate written there - but strangely there are no resources for it, and there are no articles in either of their 3 newest journals about it.
I've asked this before: Can you reference other forecasters than Armstrong who is saying this? Can you answer me why Armstrong isn't publishing this research in forecasting journals - instead of in E&E? --Kim D. Petersen (talk) 01:48, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Y'know, I'd be really curious to find out how Ron thinks climate models work. This is genuine academically-motivated curiosity, not an attempt to argue a point. I've often wondered about the level of understanding of these things among the public. Raymond Arritt (talk) 01:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Raymond, my understanding is not great, but probably somewhat better than the public at large. I have played with EdGCM and ran it on my computer for a while. It does not produce nearly the number of data points the larger GCMs produce at different atmospheric elevations or pressures. Basically, the GCMs run a number of differential equations such as Navier-Stokes with different inputs (forcings and parameterizations). I understand most of the GCMs have very poor documentation and do not explain what equations are being solved or why. I understand one GCM has excellent documentation (but I have not read it). I probably know more about the weaknesses of the models than I do about the models themselves. For example, I know Navier-Stokes does a pretty good job describing laminar flows but is total crap when it comes to turbulent flows resulting from rough topography along the surface. I know the models are not good at clouds, precipitation, dust, and a number of other factors that are important to weather and climate. I know Roger Pielke has criticized the models for not being sensitive to the initial value problem. I know none of the 22 major models have any equations to represent the negative feedback found by Roy Spencer over the tropics. Plus, I am not convinced the inclusion of Spencer's negative feedback would complete the picture. We just learned about Spencer's negative feedback... so, what else don't we know? There is no reason to believe the equations being solved by the computers are representative of our climate. The expressed faith of climate scientists in GCMs is, to me, the height of naivete.RonCram (talk) 07:17, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I have a larger question to pose but for the moment I'm curious, what's Spencer's negative feedback? Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:15, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
Spencer has identified it as the Infrared Iris effect hypothesized by Richard Lindzen.[58] Are you serious? Did you really not know that? RonCram (talk) 15:35, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I looked it up. I didn't realize that was the paper you're referring to. The actual GRL paper is so different from your interpretation that at first I didn't recognize it. Anyway, you're completely wrong in stating "none of the 22 major models have any equations to represent the negative feedback found by Roy Spencer." The equations are there; it's a matter of resolution and of improving the interaction between the convective parameterization and grid-scale moist physics. Raymond Arritt (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
I am not wrong unless Spencer is wrong. Spencer specifically states in his conclusions that the models do not model this negative feedback. And why should they? The feedback was first observed in 2007.RonCram (talk) 16:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)
As I noted, the actual paper has little relationship to what you're saying here. Here's the Discussion and Conclusions section of the paper in its entirety:
[21] The composite of fifteen strong intraseasonal oscillations we examined revealed that enhanced radiative cooling of the ocean-atmosphere system occurs during the tropospheric warm phase of the oscillation. Our measured sensitivity of total (SW + LW) cloud radiative forcing to tropospheric temperature is �6.1 W m�2 K�1. During the e composite oscillation’s rainy, tropospheric warming phase, the longwave flux anomalies unexpectedly transitioned from warming to cooling, behavior which was traced to a decrease in ice cloud coverage. This decrease in ice cloud coverage is nominally supportive of Lindzen’s "infrared iris" hypothesis. While the time scales addressed here are short and not necessarily indicative of climate time scales, it must be remembered that all moist convective adjustment occurs on short time scales. Since these intraseasonal oscillations represent a dominant mode of convective variability in the tropical troposphere, their behavior should be considered when testing the convective and cloud parameterizations in climate models that are used to predict global warming.
Where does he "specifically state in his conclusions that the models do not model this negative feedback"? Show me please. All he does is recommend that intraseasonal oscillations be considered when testing models and parameterizations. (The fact that we're already looking at intraseasonal oscillations when testing models and parameterizations seems to have escaped him -- we have whole conference sessions on things like model performance for the MJO. But that's another issue.) Raymond Arritt (talk) 16:45, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Raymond, Spencer wrote: "Since these intraseasonal oscillations represent a dominant mode of convective variability in the tropical troposphere, their behavior should be considered when testing the convective and cloud parameterizations in climate models that are used to predict global warming." It is clear he is making a recommendation to change the models here. It is possible to model intraseasonal oscillations but have the wrong sign on the feedback. I believe the models do exactly that at present. If you can find a model that has a negative feedback, it certainly is not strong enough to match observations.RonCram (talk) 17:06, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

To reinforce what I wrote below: The models do not have a parameter "tropical cloud feedback" that you set to +3.1415 or -2.7183 to match observed behaviour. Rather, if the model is detailed enough, the feedback will be observed as emerging behaviour of the simple physical properties modeled with differential equations. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
...and here you fall into the Armstrong trap. It's a feature of real physical models that they can predict effects not yet observed. You do not just pick any mathematical model, and tweak the parameters until they fit the observations. Your equations describe real, physical processes. If they fail to predict an effect that is observed (and validated), that may be because the model resolution is insufficient, or because some boundary effects have been overlooked, or because some aspect are not modeled that turn out to be significant. It's usually not because your base model is completely unsupported and just fit by accident. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:33, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, we are not discussing Armstrong at present. I understand tuning models. Who was it that said "Give me six parameters and I can fit an elephant?" I can't remember, but the point stands. Being able to fit history does not mean you have any predictive power. Read what Pielke wrote. A GCM is an hypothesis. It cannot predict anything. RonCram (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Your error (and Armstrong's) is that you don't understand the nature of the models, or at least not the implications of their nature. Here is a simple model equation with 6 parameters: h(x)=sin (ax+bx2+cx3+dx4+ex5+fx6). Now go ahead and use that to fit the behavior of a body accelerated in a constant gravitational field, usually described by h(t)=0.5at2 --Stephan Schulz (talk) 09:46, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not a mathematician. Your mistake is in believing the math, in any way, can predict nature. Have you read the book "Useless Arithmetic"? Or have you read Pielke's writings on why GCM's cannot predict anything?RonCram (talk) 13:47, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, I belief that math can predict nature, and I'm proven right every time a space probe reaches another planet, or an airplane lifts up, or a car crumbles just right to not kill the inhabitants in a collision, or someone transmits 53kBit/s, but never 106kBit/s over a legal German modem line. Of course you have to understand the nature and limits of the model you apply - we cannot predict every particular bend in the sheet metal, or which nucleus in a large U235 mass will spontaneously decay and start the chain reaction. But even in systems described stochastically, we can often make strong predictions about the possible end states and their distribution. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:40, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I do not think of a car crash or space travel as "nature." I had in mind the limited idea of "climate" which is a complicated system we are still learning about. As Pielke says, a GCM is an hypothesis. An hypothesis has to be tested against observations. GCMs are not evidence of anything and cannot predict anything. People have been testing the GCMs against observations and they have not done well. Wikipedia readers interested in the global warming controversy will want to know about the test results of the GCMs. There is no reason to censor this information and keep it from readers.RonCram (talk) 14:51, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Stephan, I agree that models can give us an idea of what will happen in certain situations, but there is never certainty. The complete axiomatic basis of mathematics is some sister of faith. Furthermore, why can weathermen only predict at most 7-10 days of forecasting in a local region and climatologists believe they can predict the next 10 or even 50 years of global climate? For me this has always been a paradox. All the combine databases in the world still don't have enough memory or power to model the discrete happening of nature around the globe well enough to predict something of this sort. Because of this we have to rely on statistical methods for long term projections that quickly become deluded. Even if your beginning parameters were correct to almost precision, because they are not perfect they will quickly deviate from the true circumstance. We can understand how the individual natural laws work, but when you combine hundreds of those the model is just too intense. Go back to the IPCC's first report and compare how they thought the following 17 years would be. Then compare that to today's datasets. Not near what they thought. The computers have improved, and a few more equations have been created, but still not enough to think we can predict the weather in this fashion. The math and modeling of climate still has much to be desired. InfoNation101 | talk | 20:56, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
If you don't understand the difference between weather and climate prediction, you must have carefully avoided a large part of the discussion. I've seen this argument a few hundred times, and the answer is always the same. You may not be able to predict a particular event (weather), but you can predict the distribution of events (climate). The trivial example is throwing a coin. Assuming it's a Laplace-coin, I can never predict the outcome of the next throw (or the one 2000 throws down the line). But I can with a high accuracy predict the proportion of heads or tails over the next 1000 throws. Inexact initial conditions and errors in approximation do play a large role if your system is unstable or even chaotic. But the climate (not weather) models are reasonably well-behaved. Given constant forcings, it will usually converge on very similar states in the long run. I don't have the first IPCC report at hand, but as far as I can tell from cites and reports I have seen, nearly all of the predictions are still compatible with our current observations. The concrete emission scenarios have been modified (the 1990 report had not fully incorporated the collapse of the Eastern Block industries), but the climate sensitivities and overall projections are very similar to what we think is right today. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Pielke Jr. from the University of Colorado has compiled this information here. As you can see the IPCC AR1 was high. If you create a linear regression of the temperature starting 1990 the line follows just under the IPCC's lowest predicted average, and while the amount of CO2 has been at the high end of the projections, we are receiving mixed interpretations. The reason is because the IPCC has greatly over estimated the amount of influence CO2 in the atmosphere. Might we also remember that even though the ppm has gone from around 300 to 600, that is still only .03% to .04% of the total atmosphere. How about one idea that I have never seen introduced. Because almost all the heat that we receive comes from the sun, wouldn't it almost seem painfully obvious that any fluctuation in the sun's surface temperature would be felt here on earth? So simple it almost sounds stupid. Funny thing, if you look at the sun surface temperature since 1970 it was also going up, with a high spike in 1998, then has been declining since then. Hm, it's interesting that the average temperature for the last 9-10 years is also declining, but there is still never given any attribution. The models are highly flawed, and the IPCC would never be able to predict even the next 10 years of climate change (as they have already shown) little more the next 50 years. InfoNation101 | talk | 15:54, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Stephan, this is typical cross-talk. We always get the weather vs climate lecture whenever we point out that computer models cannot predict climate 100 years into the future. Believe me when I say we understand the difference between weather and climate. The only way one can believe the models can predict climate 100 years into the future is to believe CO2 is the prime driver of climate variation. If you look at any reasonable temperature reconstruction (one prior to Mann or one that rejects strip bark tree rings), you will see our planet has had lots of natural climate variation in the last 1,000 years. What caused all of that climate variation? We really don't know because the IPCC is focused only on studying human-induced climate change and no one is studying natural climate variation anymore. But we do know that computer models cannot produce reliable predictions. Also, your claim that IPCC climate sensitivities are very similar to what we think is right today is not accurate. Both Schwartz and Chylek published after the AR4 cutoff date and their papers were not used by the IPCC. RonCram (talk) 07:25, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

I did not bring up the weather vs. climate story. Do we agree that this argument "the weatherman is often wrong, therefore we cannot predict climate" is wrong and therefore should not be used? Yes, our planet has had a lot of climate variability, and of course scientists look at the reasons for this. Why do you think we do ice core work going back hundreds of thousands of years? No, we do not know that computer models cannot produce reliable predictions. That depends entirely on the domain, the models, and the assumptions. All of the IPCC predictions are, of course, based on certain assumptions about greenhouse gas emissions and other climate forcings. If you disregard the assumptions, sure, your prediction break. "If a car hits my bicycle (while I'm riding it, at reasonable speeds...other unspoken assumptions), I will be injured" is not the same as "I will be injured". For a famous case see the Hansen predictions and their misuse. And yes, sorry for the imprecision. When I wrote "what we think is right today", I was referring to the opinion of the scientific community as represented in the IPCC reports. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:19, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
Stephan, no I do not agree the argument "the weatherman is often wrong, therefore we cannot predict climate" is wrong and therefore should not be used. The argument is often presented to me that "the weatherman is often right, and climate predictions are based on the same type of computer models as weather predictions, so we can also predict climate." I reject that idea completely. Weather predictions are good for a week or so. Weather predictions will NEVER be accurate for two weeks no matter the computer power addressing the problem. The system is too chaotic. And so is climate. You do not even know what climate forcings are being neglected by your models. We know the models do not factor in the negative feedback observed by Spencer. But what else is left out? Pielke has written about this. A computer model is an hypothesis. That's all. The ability to hindcast means nothing. Anyone can tune a model to fit previous patterns but that gives it no predictive skill at all. RonCram (talk) 14:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)