User talk:Sirwells

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Welcome

Welcome!

Hello, Sirwells, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your messages on discussion pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically insert your username and the date. If you need help, check out Wikipedia:Questions, ask me on my talk page, or ask your question on this page and then place {{helpme}} before the question. Again, welcome! - Enuja (talk) 18:09, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversial Research

I am willing to talk about my boss's research here on your talk page. I am not willing to talk about it on Talk:Global warming. Please do not copy and paste my comments onto that page. I think the point is relevant to discussions about funding of controversial research in general, which I think you don't understand. I do not think the point is relevant to the article Global warming. My boss is a comparative physiologist; the controversy was something about shunting blood flow in reptiles, but I honestly don't recall what.

There are two types of controversy in science; controversies about the science, and political controversies. The current "controversy" about global warming is entirely politically constructed. It is not a scientific controversy. It is scientific controversies that get funding from granting agencies tasked with giving out money to advance science and political controversies that get funded by partisan think-tanks. There are think tanks on both "sides" of the global warming issue that fund research (and more so summaries of research) only on one side or the other. There is a lot of scientifically controversial research about the details and extent of global climate change. And that does get funded, and answers do get published, no matter what they turn out to be.

My boss's work was not politically controversial, but it was scientifically controversial, in the small field he was working in. The best way to get a grant funded it to say "Hypothesis A predicts X, hypothesis B predicts Y, this is a controversial field, and my study will distinguish between the two hypotheses."

I think that trout are much, much more at risk from land use change and fishing than from global warming. I think most people studying trout would agree. Yes, a study that tries to see how much trout will be affected by global warming will only ask that question, not bigger questions. A nice recent study on extinction risks in birds found that, under four different scenarios, birds are at greater risk of extinction from land use change than from global warming. (I don't appear to have it; if you are interested I can look it up.) If you ask big questions, you get big answers. If you ask small questions, you get small answers.

Is there anthropogenic global warming? Yes. Is it the largest human-caused risk to other species on plant earth? Probably not. Do research grants go to people who are familiar with and buy the well supported parts of what we know about climate change? Yes. Do scientific research grants go to people who falsify data in order to get political attention? No. - Enuja (talk) 22:31, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

How can you say there is no scientific controversy when there are obviously thousands of scientists who are skeptical, and no poll validating the claim of consensus. --Sirwells (talk) 02:38, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any evidence of skepticism in thousands of people who are familiar with and understand the research. My standards for "understanding the research" are high, and I do not count myself among those who are familiar with and understand the research (because I can't follow the climate modeling at all). It is not obvious to me that "thousands of scientists" are skeptical; what is your evidence for this? - Enuja (talk) 03:42, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
The OISM petition has 32,000 names on it of scientists who are skeptical, and is transparent enough for anyone who wants to verify the credentials of those names. --Sirwells (talk) 21:39, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
There is basically no disagreement amongst experts on climate. And the "scientists" who dissent publically are a bit like the cast of "I'm a celeb get me out of here", of little substance in their own field and attention seeking. However I personally think the risks AGW is all wrong are greatly underestimated. A bit like with GM food the subject is too complex and scientific history is full of overturned consensus. But thats my POV and a bit OR ish, plus the problem won't be a simple "flaw" or forgotten effect. Until we find a better WP policy we go for consensus and there is little point trying to include fringe views even if we are suspicious they may be right. Sorry. --BozMo talk 19:08, 23 May 2008 (UTC)
You've been going to too many Al Gore pep-rallies.--Sirwells (talk) 21:35, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, what's Al Gore? --BozMo talk 21:38, 24 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe BozMo really doesn't know who Al Gore is, but I, at least, squirmed throughout An Inconvenient Truth at counterproductive simplifications, a few errors I don't specifically remember, and especially the soft-focus biography junk. The biggest and best thing I got out of that movie was some pointers on how to make a fantastic powerpoint presentation. Al Gore hasn't invented a problem; he just found a good way to promote himself while talking about something he's actually paid attention to for a very long time. The movie apparently did a good job of getting the word out to a broader audidence, but anyone who'd looked into the science before the movie came out already knew everything Al Gore said. - Enuja (talk) 02:49, 25 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay sorry I have heard of Al Gore. My mind was on El Nino La Nina Al Gore (the little boy, the little girl and the sock heel). Fortunately we don't have him or any of his movies here. --BozMo talk 05:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] You are not alone!

I just wanted to tell you of my great respect for your amazing diligence in the Global Warming discussion board. I had been on a high about the potential for a Wikiality-based reality, but reading your posts brought me sadly back to earth about Wikipedia and mankind. Either Raymond was playing with you (due to a lack of integrity) or his constant inability to understand your very clear and repeated efforts (OMG, how did you keep it going?) suggests a severe lack of intelligence and critical thinking skills. No matter his degrees, funding, or numbers of papers, he’s no scientist. And, I never saw an explanation as to why the article is locked or whose backend has to be kissed or altar has to be blessed to be able to change it. I’ve often lost the battle with management over, “If you’re not a scientist, how do you know which questions to ask to hire a good one?” And, even if one is just going by the old Motorola adage (when inventing 6-sigma) of always hiring for character and training for skills, I’ve never met a manager with a clear picture of how to interview for that either. IMHO, Enuja claiming he’s not an expert but still an authority on what a “real” one looks just sounds like the rest of the scientific management (for both technical and character testing abilities), most of which remind me of Lars and the Real Girl. I hope you can laugh (while crying) at the rest of this...

Science proves we’re all irrational, dogmatic, illiterate, cruel, intolerant, insane, thieving liars. Perception of the external world is not possible in less than a fifth of a second and yet up to 95% of our decisions are made in a quarter of that time (Gladwell’s book Blink is why web pages are now tested in only 1/20th second). So, we perceive an issue only after our “Old Brain” has already made a decision (persuasion science shows thinking we’re thinking is the most fundamental self-lie). Moreover, the Minnesota Multiple Personality Inventory (MMPI), the oldest and most respected personality test, uses as proof you're a liar if you refuse to admit you would steal by sneaking into a movie theater without paying any time you knew you could do so without getting caught. Thusly, behaviorists showed long ago that introspection was unreliable, providing only subjective gains (producing self-made men and women who worship their creators). Any system based on humans is inherently unreliable, thus all science and engineering ends up tainted.

For instance, automotive engineers understand that GM must employ ten times as many people to make about the same number of cars as Toyota that are, sadly, less reliable both from focusing more on reliability of parts rather than the whole car and from using strict fixed controls rather than trust to sustain long-term worker relationships. And, while it’s popular to think guns are responsible for violence in Africa, political scientists agree it is rather the well-intentioned actions of religious relief efforts that corrupt government-citizen relationships by “giving them fish instead of teaching them to fish.” And, don't get me started on law enforcement. Clearly, this natural tendency is about "functional illiterates" who are able to produce yet have no real understanding (Peopleware showed all technical problems are really people problems). S.D. Elliot (1998) showed 99.7% of all violence prevention programs (e.g.: zero tolerance, scared straight, DARE, boot and wilderness camps) do not address any known risk factors and often make things worse. And yet, the people researching such programs keep suggesting some sort of intangible value (just as the top four research-based K-12 reading programs only get 3% of funding) - bias, how could you suggest such a thing? Then, the U.N. has been shown to force researchers to falsify data in order to produce more saleable solutions (as U.N. official Terry McKinley admitted in February, 1996) just as it is common and acceptable practice, for example, to generate 100,000 samples in order to find the sequential 20,000 that best supports what the funding sources wants to hear. We live in a world where the most dangerous truth of the last 50 years (to the point of killing the soul of 60-Minutes) was that cigarettes are bad for you.

But, this is nothing new. Vincent van Gough sold only one picture in his life out of over 2,000 works (The Red Vineyard), Ronald Coase was awarded the Nobel prize for Economics in 1991 for a paper he wrote in 1937, and Jamie Escalante sent more East LA HS students to Ivy League colleges than Hollywood High but was reassigned to asbestos removal and kicked out completely after movie “Stand and Deliver” fame. Sadly, popularity is ALWAYS a sign of being wrong. A Harvard study gave business problems to groups of MBA students with a secret ringer with all the right answers, who was ignored 100% of the time. Then again, an Ivy School education isn’t what it seems to be. A fellow walking through graduation at Yale in the late 80’s found that 90% of the grads and professors didn’t even know why the moon has phases or the Earth has seasons. Getting published is certainly no guarantee either (as was suggested to you). For example, Jonathan Patz, an associate professor at the University of Wisconsin (and three colleagues), wrote a Nature article claiming global warming kills 150,000 people each year primarily using the 2003 European heat wave as proof, but every “real” climatologist that talked about the subject afterwards has affirmed again and again that it is impossible and irresponsible to make such conclusions.

But, why worry about air pollution or global warming (especially after some say its already too late to worry) when cigarettes cause over a quarter of all deaths? Why recycle when a thousand Americans die every day from poor nutritional choices? Why even work for justice when the hand on the gun aimed at our heads is more likely not a terrorist or murderer but our own (55% of the annual 30,622 successful suicides being committed with a firearm) and the rampant problems with drugs, alcohol, and casual sex taking so many more (with 60% of the children in the Caribbean dying from AIDS)? Shouldn’t our first concern (and media attention) be that all of the top ten ways Americans die being basically from suicidal tendencies (not forgetting we have 3% of the world’s population but 25% of the world’s prisoners)?

I have sadly seen research-based processes like 6-sigma dissolve into just more nepotistic hiring (in a world where who you know seems to matter more than ever before as our top agencies are all lead by political assignments), but had still hoped Wikipedia’s structure and seeming lack of financial agenda would work over time to successfully overcome such natural tendencies toward entertainment common to every industry from politics to global warming. Alas, no. Here's to you and your efforts. TucsonJim50 (talk) 08:25, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks TucsonJim50. Cheers to you.  :D--Sirwells (talk) 01:50, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] May 2008

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to contribute constructively to the encyclopedia, we must insist that you assume good faith while interacting with other editors, which you did not on Talk:Global warming/FAQ. Take a look at the welcome page to learn more about contributing to this encyclopedia. Thank you. Kim D. Petersen (talk) 10:23, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Consensus discussion

Sirwells, have you read the policies about what is to be included in an article here on wikipedia? If not, these are the most relevant pages for the current discussion: Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources. The welcome message posted above also links to relevant information. As have been pointed out several times, there are many reliable sources for the current text. If you want to change the text about consensus you will need to provide sources of similar prominence supporting your statement.
—Apis (talk) 12:02, 2 June 2008 (UTC)