Talk:Ross McKitrick/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Hello William. Sorry you don't like bits of my copy edits. 'Recently' would be better if you had a date - otherwise it can't be made timeless enough to last on WP. 'Minor' journal: well, one knows what you mean, in terms of prestige - is there another way to put this that either is less POV, or more what you mean?

Charles Matthews 11:12, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 12:45, 6 Sep 2004 (UTC)) Hi Charles. Tricky line between NPOV and info... so:

Minor: I don't think its in the citation indices... which would really make it sub-minor. Perhaps Scientific journal (or somewhere) could have a section on journal ranking?

"Recent": yes well... since 2003 (very ish) I guess. I'll check up. The point I'm trying to make is that most of his work is on econ and this is a career move.

Over-the-top editorializing

(William M. Connolley 20:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) Please try to choose NPOV headers in future.

This isn't the body of the article, this is the discussion section - you don't get to dictate what I write here... regardless of how much you apparently would like to. --JonGwynne 19:04, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Let me ask you something William, is it possible for you to express yourself on a subject without editorializing on it?

(William M. Connolley 20:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) Yes. In turn, why don't you see if you can edit a climate related article without pushing your POV.

There's no evidence yet of your objectivity. Perhaps you should go learn what editorializing is so that you can learn to curb this tendency in the future. As regards your complaints about what you claim is my POV... What you see as POV is simply neutrality. You are so deeply and personally invested in a certain viewpoint on climate that even neutrality appears to you to be POV. I suggest you speak to a psychologist or psychiatrist about this phenomenon. I hasten to add that I'm not suggesting that you suffer from any sort of mental illness or need professional mental help - I'm simply saying that you'd benefit from some understanding of the tendency of certain people to cling to extreme views and erroneously view their partisan approach to discussing them as objectivity. --JonGwynne 19:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

I have no POV, I am simply advocating an accurate and objective view. Perhaps you should consider a similar approach.

Can you make a point without explaining that you think people who don't agree with you are stupid? That's what you seem to be doing here.

• The ridiculous "failure to distinguish radians and degrees" statement. How do you know RM failed to distinguish them? Obviously you do not. But you apparently need to ridicule McKitrick... is it because he has the temerity to challege the orthodox view?

(William M. Connolley 20:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) There was a basic, and very embarassing, error in that paper over the failure to distinguish D+R. Naturally, you'd rather that inconvenient fact was removed.

It isn't a fact that they "failed to distinguish" the units - that's your unwarranted and unsupported assumption. The fact is that there was a programming error. As to *why* it happened... unless you have proof then you're just speculating. --JonGwynne 08:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• Your obsession with rejection and speculation as to whether or not one or another of RM's papers will be accepted in the future. What possible relevance can this have to an article? How many papers have you published? More to the point, how many have you had rejected?

(William M. Connolley 20:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) The rejection of the paper is clearly relevant. The only reason we kn ow it was rejected, of course, is because McK made such a fuss about imaginary censorship.

Why is rejection relevant? Do you know *why* it was rejected? If not, it is at best an incomplete and argumentative statement and at worst an attempt to misrepresent the facts. --JonGwynne 08:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

• I'm particular amused that, in your haste to revert you have removed a statement I put in which emphasized criticism of RM. Let me ask you, do you even read the things you revert, or do you simply assume that because people on your "enemies list" wrote it, it must be wrong?

(William M. Connolley 20:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) I read them, at least enough to be sure of what kind of quality is being done. If you start off with gross POV pushing, don't complain about finer stuff being lost.

In other words, you don't read what you revert. Why am I not surprised?

• I also notice that you removed criticism of Mann, et al in MIT's publication "Technology Review". I guess you don't mind undermining conclusions of people you disagree with but when it comes to your idealogical bretheren, then criticism just isn't allowed. I'm not at all surprised given your obviously partisan mindset and lack of objectivity on this subject.

(William M. Connolley 20:05, 21 May 2005 (UTC)) Peer reviewed stuff is better.

Oh, well in that case, I'll just remove your criticism of RM since it doesn't appear to be peer-reviewed. --JonGwynne 08:33, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

In any case, I notice you have been unable to justify your reversions. I can only assume that this is because you can't.

--JonGwynne 17:46, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I notice you still can't support your reversions... I also notice that you don't mind using non-peer-reviewed material when it support your POV. I also reverted your blatant censorship of my title heading. How many times do you have to be told that you're not allowed to censor other people's commentary before you finally grasp this concept? It seems to be a fairly basic idea - is it that you don't understand or that you think the rules don't apply to you? --JonGwynne 17:19, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

(William M. Connolley 17:41, 22 May 2005 (UTC)) Your bias is so blatant, its really a mystery how you expect to get away with it. You removed one non-peer-rev ref, but left the one, also non-PR, it was responding to. The comments stuff I've removed again - they were uninformed and unhelpful. We are *not* here to link to uniformed discussion just because it supports your pet POV.

Funny, I have said the same thing about you. Perhaps you're engaging in a little projection here - particularly with the phrase "Your bias is so blatant, its really a mystery how you expect to get away with it" - that is as succinct a description of your contributions here as I have yet seen. Your failure to provide substantive responses to the issues at hand (and to resort to abuse, invicility and ad hominem) is a strong indication of the lack of foundation for your position. Put simply, if you had the facts to support your views... you wouldn't have to be so rude. But I suppose I shouldn't expect anything different from someone who collects his paycheck as the result of the promulgation of a particular POV. People in that position tend to respond with hostility to those who they see as a threat to their POV. --JonGwynne 19:12, 22 May 2005 (UTC)

Nature, etc.

The insistence of JonGwynne to remove certain sentences from the aricle is clearly PoV. First, he changed reference to the fact thata paper had been rejected by Nature to saying that theree had been no room for it (which is a – partial – reson for rejecting it, and an excuse that most editors use all too often when they don't want to offend; editors include papers that they really want to, space or no space). Secondly, he switched tack, and started replacing the original text with even more misleading comment that the paper hasn't been published yet; well, true — but a weasel way of covering up its rejection.

If he could provide evidence that the paper wasn't rejected (which presumably he can't, given the evidence that it was, as revealed by his original changes), then his edit could stay, but not otherwsie. His ranting accusations on my Talk page won't change that fact. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:41, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I think you must be talking about someone else. I never attempted to characterize the reason for Nature's rejection of it. In fact, my point is that without knowing the reason for it, mentioning the rejection is inappropriate. It is an attempt by WMC (and now apparently you) to discredit the paper with the implication that it was rejected for being flawed when he doesn't seem to have any idea (nor, apparently do you) why it was rejected - in other words, blatant POV. Also, since when did you start to be able to read the minds of editors? Such clearly is your implication when you start talking about things like "an excuse that most editors use all too often when they don't want to offend; editors include papers that they really want to, space or no space."

Interesting. Which peer-reviewed journal do you edit? I mean it sounds as though you're talking through your hat but if you are actually an editor of a publication similar to Nature, then you might be in a position to make these sort of comments. If not, then they're a joke.

The fact also remains that you have failed to justify your changes and you can be as rude as you want, but you can't get past that basic fact. Why don't you stick to making edits that you can justify? It would be less irritating to other people. --JonGwynne 15:49, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I've been on the editorial boards of two peer-reviewed academic journals (one print, one on-line), and have been involved with a number of others, as well as knowing a number of editors of various journals in different academic areas — so no, I don't need to read minds. And changing "was rejected by Nature" to "hasn't yet been published" deliberately covers up a relevant fact; that's the reason for reverting it. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 20:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Were you an actual editor or were you acting in an administrative capacity? Which publications? Also, what makes you think that your personal habits and/or the anecdotal experience you have in any way translates to the journal Nature? Just curious. --JonGwynne 21:30, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

I was an editor; I avoid admin when possible. The two on which I was co-editor were professional philosophy journals, as were most of those with which I was personally involved (though one was anthropology). Editors whom I know include those of journals in environmental studies, marine biology, and history, and I'm reasonably closely acquainted with a couple of people who have editorial rôles on New Scientist, though one is more on the design side. (I didn't mention that I used to co-edit a poetry journal, because it was rather different — though in fact many of the same issues arose.) Everyone has reported similar experiences, relating similar anecdotes; unless Nature is very different from all of these, and I can't see why it should be, then I think that I have a reasonable understanding of how it works. If the editor wants to publish an article, he'll publish it; if he doesn't, it's because he doesn't want to. Why he doesn't want to is usually because he doesn't think that it's of sufficient quality, but there might be other reasons, which is why the article doesn't guess at the reason, only reporting the fact. Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 21:52, 25 May 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for answering my questions. However, none of them address the issue that the rejection (if it even happened - there is no supporting evidence offered for the claim) is irrelevant to the article and is merely an attempt to undermine the paper at hand with the unsupported implication that it was somehow inadequate when there is no real evidence that it was. Therefore, I'm going to remove the references to rejection as being unsupported and they should stay out until or unless someone can provide an authoritative link that...

• A. Proved the paper was rejected for cause.
• B. Makes it clear *what* the cause was - preferably with some sort of official statement by the individual who rejected the paper in question.--JonGwynne 06:38, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

All that is required is that the paper was rejected, as that's all that the article says. I'm not entirely clear what you mean by "for cause", but of course there was a reason for its rejection. The article doesn't make any claim about the reason, but if you want to find out, please do. I'll contact the editor of Nature and see if I can find anything further (but unless he's a very unusual – and untrustworthy – editor, he'll tell me at most that the article was rejected, not why). Mel Etitis (Μελ Ετητης) 08:27, 27 May 2005 (UTC)

But given the contentious nature of this subject, wouldn't you agree that simple mentioning the paper was rejected without giving details is extremely prejudicial? To answer your question, "for cause" means it was rejected because one or more of the reviewers found the article to be flawed and, therefore, unsuitable for publication. For all we know, it was rejected because the editor didn't think much of the author's credentials. Sorry if I appear a little touchy on this, but given the arrogant and condescending dismissal by "The Usual Suspects" here of legitimate criticism raised by M&M, I think it only fair that someone try to hold up their side. --JonGwynne 08:09, 28 May 2005 (UTC)

Rv: why

(William M. Connolley 20:45, 28 May 2005 (UTC)) JG continues to be bizarrely keen on finding some way of toning down McK's rejection by Nature. Now he keeps adding "though there was no indication as to why the paper was rejected." For the first, there is no way for him to know whether this is true or not. For the second, it is implausible, since it is the near-invariable practice of journals to explain why they reject papers. For the third, McK put up on his own web site the letter of rejection, so we do know...

And the quotes are there because although McK claimed to have done an audit, its not clear in what sense the word is being used or whether it was meaningfully done.

So if we know, are we willing to accept McK's reason's for Nature's rejection? --Audiovideo 13:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Only if he publishes the letter in full, selective quotation isn't acceptable. And how would we know he had published it in full? These things are usually private; its only McK's indiscretion that has made it public. William M. Connolley 16:22:59, 2005-07-14 (UTC).

So do we know or not?--Audiovideo 12:41, 15 July 2005 (UTC)