User talk:DHeyward/Archive 13

Trolling
It's been awhile since I've encountered an IP or anyone for that matter that was too stupid to grasp our policies as has been going on fir a few days at the Franklin child abuse allegations article...in fact, the level of obstinance makes me believe we're just dealing with a troll who has nothing better to do except disrupt. Anyway, thanks for your efforts there.--MONGO 17:21, 25 November 2013 (UTC)
 * I find it interesting the an IP shows up to pov push the same BLP violation after a dispute. Every single time.  The archives have the same pattern.  Need to semi-protect w/ auto-confirmed users.  It's 30 years old. now, I think.  --DHeyward (talk) 03:22, 26 November 2013 (UTC)

Clarification
You have been asked to clarify a statement you made on Jimbo Wales talk page. Please do so as the current misunderstanding could see you blocked from editing.--Mark Miller (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * DHeyward...the above is easily ignored for what it is as is the directionless discussion at Jimbos page.--MONGO 12:29, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * This is to warn you that your disruptive editing in an attempt to make a point was inappropriate...no matter how many editors tell you to ignore it. Mongo, if you feel that editors are to be ignored for your own personal opinion over Wikipedia policy and guidelines, please be aware that there are many editors that feel that such advice could be seen as telling the editor to not hear that.--Mark Miller (talk) 13:30, 4 December 2013 (UTC)
 * You're making something out of nothing and threats of sanctions are just silly....get over yourself.--MONGO 15:21, 4 December 2013 (UTC)


 * The reply was only for Tarc who is topic-banned on transgender issues. My edit wasn't disruptive. Tarc conflated two types of offensive words (wp:cum and wp:fag).  One a simple vulgarity and the other was a slur.   One is a legitimate LGBT concern, the other is not.  Considering his past behavior, his topic ban, and his user page apology and declaration to stay out of WP space, a giant red flag went up when he conflated the two offensive words into your homophobia thread.  I wasn't questioning your sincerity at all.  If Tarc gets LGBT sensitive editors to eliminate simple vulgarity under the LGBT umbrella, please don't say you haven't been warned about his previous experiment.  Here is the experiment.   And here is the concern that he started round 2 .  I don't care whether he stirs the pot clockwise or counter-clockwise, he shouldn't be stirring at all.  When/if he throws the LGBT crowd under the bus for his own personal view of over-the-top reactions (like removing the vulgar word 'cum' as if it were equivalent to the LGBT slur 'fag'), don't say you haven't been warned (ask yourself how a topic banned editor came across wp:fag and decides to nominate for deletion despite topic ban and pledge to stay off wp space? ).  It will not help anyone if he turns your legitimate concerns into a showcase of how he manipulated other editors to grab "pitchforks and torches" to remove and change content that has nothing to do with the banner they changed it under (wp:cum is not related to homophobia though he brought it up on your thread).  My advice to Tarc was to take his userpage to heart and stay away from WP space and his topic ban should keep him out of transgender related concerns.  My advice to you is to keep bringing up your concerns and fight the good fight, but be careful as to who you fight with and what battles they bring to you.  --DHeyward (talk) 15:01, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I think you have an excellent point, but I am also seeing the same issue as I brought up on the signpost when the Manning sanctions were handed down. Tarc shouldn't be the target of inferred COI to make a point, any more than Tarc should be creating issues just as an experiment. But you also deserve AGF and will do so.--Mark Miller (talk) 19:44, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I wasn't inferring he had a COI, actually, quite the opposite. I simply googled 'tarc acronym' to show that acronyms don't always have the meaning that others confer by their use.  I though it would be extremely obvious that he wasn't associated at all with "Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center" to counter his made up "Creation and Usage of New Templates."  The idea being that we wouldn't ask "Tarc" the person to change his username because it could be confused with "Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center."  It was ridiculous on its face (argumentum ad absurdum) to think User Tarc and "Tenderloin AIDS Resource Center" were related.  They are intrinsically different and I didn't think there could be a mistake in identifying that as an argument style as opposed to a factual assertion even though I chose that particular search return because it was close to the topic (apparently too close).  I simply don't wish to go on an acronym or vulgarity crusade (i.e. drama magnets) with him as his motivations seem counter to his userpage apology and his past actions. --DHeyward (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * And I'll add it's only in this area that I am concerned. I'd like to see time and space.  I would much rather have Josh Gorand and David Gerard involved back in LGBT areas before Tarc.  Only because I can understand and deal with people who have passion even if we disagree.  I don't know how to deal with deception except with restoring trust over time.  Tarc has stated that he is not particularly passionate about LGBT issues so my concern is just: why nominate a 2 y/o template that is offensive to LGBT editors (Streisand effect anyone?).  I just read your signpost bit and I respect that you are a gay activist, have said so, give your opinion and work according to making the project better.  I hope you edit and/or review LGBT articles and are involved in making WP space friendlier to LGBT editors (and all editors).  --DHeyward (talk) 21:08, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * I looked over a bit of the acronym discussion and have to say...it does seem a bit over the top. But then once, when creating short cuts for a new project I had to stop myself because the acronym seemed insulting. Can't remember which short cut, but probably better that way. Thank you for your kind words and great patience with me.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:15, 5 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Oh...and I !voted for David Gerard for arb com.--Mark Miller (talk) 21:16, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

Warning?
What the hell was this? I haven't vandalized that (or indeed any other article), nor has anybody with an IP similar to mine. If this is an honest mistake... I'd sure like to know how it came about. 126.25.72.25 (talk) 04:51, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * yes, twinkle or my own incompetence led me to your IP. It was all clicks so not sure how :(.  Sorry about that. I fixed your talk page.  None of your edits or your block log was affected. --DHeyward (talk) 05:03, 6 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Thanks.126.25.72.25 (talk) 05:29, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

December 2013
Hello, I'm BracketBot. I have automatically detected that [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?diff=585720623 your edit] to Army–Navy Game may have broken the syntax by modifying 1 ""s. If you have, don't worry: just [ edit the page] again to fix it. If I misunderstood what happened, or if you have any questions, you can leave a message on [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?action=edit&preload=User:A930913/BBpreload&editintro=User:A930913/BBeditintro&minor=&title=User_talk:A930913&preloadtitle=BracketBot%20–%20&section=new my operator's talk page].
 * List of unpaired brackets remaining on the page:

Thanks, BracketBot (talk) 09:56, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * 2009 |date=undated |author=Gelston, Dan|publisher=The Associated Press via blog (dated December 5, 2009) by Tom Hoffarth at the Los Angeles Daily News}}</
 * ] national championship matchup with Texas. Army was led by junior  second year Cadet quarterback Rollie Stichweh.  Stichweh led off the game with a touchdown

merge/split rearranging
Hi, In case you decide to propose a specific rearrangement of global warming/climate change coverage, and in case you don't already know the mechanics, please review the how-to stuff on using WP:MERGE and [{WP:SPLIT]] tags on all the effected articles, and including a pinpoint link in the tags for a single thread to discuss your ideas. We may not agree on much, but hopefully we agree that the best consensus results from lots of diverse input. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 04:28, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

talk page
In this edit I inserted a paragraph after a complete edit/paragraph of yours, and I inserted another after a 2nd complete edit/paragraph of yours that raised a different point. Inserting and indenting on a topical basis is recommended by the talk page guidelines. I suppose I can understand how the instant impression is that I moved your comments, but I did nothing of the sort. Also, TALK guidelines also encourages everyone to fiddle with section headings in the name of NPOV and organization. No one "owns" section headings, but to assuage ruffled feathers I left those out when I restored my properly indented replies. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:50, 21 January 2014 (UTC)  But I reserve the right to follow TALK guidelines in terms of section headings later. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:52, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Troll much?--MONGO 12:22, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * I do try to clear up misunderstandings so we can build an encyclopedia. Drama much, Mongo? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:24, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Compared to my contributions to this website you're not even a fart in the wind. You look like the dramaqueen here so I caution you to stop poking the bear...now.--MONGO 12:36, 21 January 2014 (UTC)
 * Re Sentence #1, hey! We agree on something! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:47, 21 January 2014 (UTC)

Pocket?
Aw. Little user decompress in congenial surroundings, away from vandals, admins, and their kin? Welcome in pocket, apply on talkpage!  bishzilla    ROA R R! !    13:28, 30 January 2014 (UTC).
 * Good idea! Place has been properly aired since my visit so all safe and cozy again now.--MONGO 20:08, 30 January 2014 (UTC)

Apologies
Sort of, anyway :-). You did and then I've hacked at that section. I don't object to your ref or text, but I did want to try to make the pix fit better, and the vast long captions were getting in the way William M. Connolley (talk) 09:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)

Orphaned non-free image File:Emissions ar5.jpg
 Thanks for uploading File:Emissions ar5.jpg. The image description page currently specifies that the image is non-free and may only be used on Wikipedia under a claim of fair use. However, the image is currently not used in any articles on Wikipedia. If the image was previously in an article, please go to the article and see why it was removed. You may add it back if you think that that will be useful. However, please note that images for which a replacement could be created are not acceptable for use on Wikipedia (see our policy for non-free media).

Note that any non-free images not used in any articles will be deleted after seven days, as described in the criteria for speedy deletion. Thank you. Stefan2 (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2014 (UTC)

Some advice, hopefully helpful
I urge you to drop the references to "BS" and "cluestick" and "complete nonsense". In some cases, it is quite obvious who did the "B" edit and who did the "R". In other cases, it is not so clear to all, even if it may seem clear to one of the participants. I've followed this discussion more than many editors, and I can see legitimate differences of opinions about when an addition or removal started. I think this issue is now moot, as there is an RfC to determine whether she should be included, but if it ever becomes important to decide which editors are which, a nice bulleted list with diffs and dates might help clear it up. I see good faith editors reaching different conclusions, not obtuse editors trying to pick a fight with you.-- S Philbrick (Talk) 16:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Right above the RFC, I provided the diffs. I'll include here if it wasn't obvious.  The February 15 edit was made without discussion or notice.  I simply reverted it.  It's pretty obvious that a reversion doesn't require "editing".   I didn't use the editor window.  Gaba even states I reverted 3 times for the purpose of describing an edit war. Then says the first one was a "bold edit" for the purpose of describing a BRD action.   Personally I don't care about the list only that they are sourced from reliable secondary sources.  There are only a few that would meet that requirement and none of the list criteria meet it.  The political blinders seem to allow these BLP violations to continue.  I don't think they are picking a fight, rather they suffer from WP:OWN and they have a list of scientists they want to have on the list and it doesn't matter how they make it so they are inventing policy.  No other list of living people would be able to have so many subjective criteria interpreted by WP editors.  It is definitely an obtuse view to continuously state that WP editors can interpret quotes against wikipedia editor derived constraints when it is expressly forbidden by multiple policies on reliable sources and living people.  We are not making a list of inanimate objects here, but actual scientists whose living depends on being able to raise research money.  Judith Curry (and the others) are climate scientist that applies for grants that support students and coauthors.  Being defamed on WP through poor sourcing and association is against policy.  How did WP determine "consensus", who said these editors opposed that "consensus" are basic precepts that are continuously ignored. If you've followed it, you must realize this.

Here's my actions. Please tell me were I made an edit that could be construed as not a revert of a bold addition. ''So everyone is clear. AQFK removed her January 8. It was discussed and she was not added back in. On Feb 15, jinksons added her back in a different section with a different source. I reverted that addition as it had not been discussed.. WP:BRD requires consensus to add her under this new section with a new source. It is edit warring to have the bold edit of Jinkinson remain over my revert with discussion. This is again, obvious WP practice. --DHeyward (talk) 21:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)''

--DHeyward (talk) 22:07, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Here's describing my first action as a bold edit ] in the BRD cycle as an argument fore reverting.. Here's describing the same edit as a revert for the purpose of describing an edit war.. That's obtuse behaviour. --DHeyward (talk) 22:26, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I obviously completely failed at making either point I wished to make.


 * However, I am stunned that someone would think it is defaming to be on this list. My guess is many on the list would agree, with pride. I'm personally on the fence whether Curry belongs on the list. My guess is that she thinks she should not be, but I'd also bet she thinks it is a close call, and depends on careful reading of the wording. She believes global warming exist (but then, so do most skeptics). She largely concurs with the best estimate of the projected warming as estimated by the IPCC, which puts her at variance with some skeptics. However, she thinks the confidence intervals promulgated by the IPCC are too high, which puts her in league with the skeptics. Does accepting the mean and disagreeing with the confidence turn out to be substantial agreement or disagreement with the IPCC? I think reasonable people can disagree. If this was a simple list, it would be a tougher call. It is not just a list, there is a ability to explain how and why she disagrees with the IPCC, so I don;t see much harm in inclusion. But I can also see the point of people who think that disagreement with one aspect of the IPCC might not be enough to qualify for the list.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:28, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It's not acurate to say she disagrees with the confidence estimates of the IPCC. Rather she disagrees with confidence intervals on the SPM andexecutive summaries made by a small group of editors based on expert judgement, and not mathematics.  Normally when a scientist makes a numerical statement, it's backed up with numerical results.  The 50% number as an example, if you believe the expert judgement there is only a 5% chance that more 0.3C of the 0.6C warming observed since 1951 is natural.  That has implications for what the "mean" warming is (you can't bound it and then not have a probability density function.  The numbers to create that statement aren't backed up at all which is why it's "expert judgement."  However, none of this really matters about what you or I think about her position.  We need a secondary source that says a) the WP criteria for the list is the "mainstream scientific consensus" (so far that is lacking because it's out of date and there are no sources that say it - nor are there likely to be any). b) secondly we need a source that say her statements conflict with that consensus.  It's not clear to me that objecting to a few editors "expert judgement" puts her outside the mainstream consensus.  And she certainly doesn't deserve to be on a list such as this as she competes for grant money.  If you were funding scientifc research, and you googled a researches name to find them listed as someone that essentially discards scientific judgement, vs. someone not on such a list, where does your money go?  Michael Mann is suing Steyn over these types of accusations that puts the researcher in a false light by claiming statements they have made contradict science.  It's defamatory.  Curry, Lindzen and Christy can all sit down with IPCC authors and hold their own - they question more than disagree and it's a huge BLP problem to claim their statements contradict scientific understanding. --DHeyward (talk) 23:51, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

I don't know whether you want to do this, but I'll start and see where it goes.

You said: ''It's not accurate to say she disagrees with the confidence estimates of the IPCC. Rather she disagrees with confidence intervals on the SPM and executive summaries made by a small group of editors based on expert judgement, and not mathematics''

I'm trying to parse this.
 * 1) I said "confidence estimates" you said "confidence intervals". Is the difference in terminology important? Are you saying that there's a difference which makes my statement wrong, but correct if you use "intervals"? Or was it just a choice of language?
 * 2) I referred to the IPCC and you emphasized SPM and executive summaries. Are you trying to say that the SPM is not the IPCC? or,
 * 3) Are you saying she agrees with most of the IPCC conclusions and her only differences are with the SPM and/or executive summaries so therefore it is inaccurate to say she disagrees with the IPCC?
 * 4) How important is your apparent distinction between mathematics and expert judgement?-- S Philbrick  (Talk)  03:10, 2 March 2014 (UTC)

For 1, the two terms mean slightly different things but wasn't meant as the contentious difference. Confidence level and interval are terms used in a Bayesian probability. That's not relevant. From our article, you can read about "objective" and "subjective" that is relevant. The rationale in the summary statements appears to be subjective but that does not relieve them from the burden of maths. The terms "likely, very likely and virtually certain all follow very closely from the 68–95–99.7 rule. When scientists say it is "very likely" and then say "very likely" is 95%-100%, it should follow all the possible analyses of variance fell between 2.5% and 97.5% of whatever range they specified (and it happens to correspond to +/- 2σ in range).  From that follows a cumulative probability graph.  So, take for example the statement "95% confidence('very likely' +/- 2σ) range that more than half the warming is anthropogenic since 1951."  Assuming that it's possible that all the warming could be anthropogenic, there should be a cumulative probability chart starting with 5% at the 50% mark (0.3C) and ending with 100% at (0.6C).   Furthermore, that temp difference should give the overall variance (1σ = 0.3C/4 = 0.075C) That's not done as a subjective excercise.  From that analysis would also be the 50% cumulative point which would be the estimate of the anthropegenic mean with a variance. An objectivist view would also do analysis of variance, particularly as it relates to different confidences of the underlying causes. The four underlying causes (two anthro and 2 not anthro) are all expressed as "likely 66-100%" which happens to correspond to +/- 1σ. If you are objectivist, the numbers don't work out in terms of variance. For example, the +/- 1σ range on natural variation is +/0.1C so the +/- 2σ range is +/- 0.2C. If you assume all the errors are independant, it breaks down the subjective viewpoint to a lot of unexplained. The numbers above are conveniently located on page 869 of the full AR5 WG1 release. . These two statements don't appear to rigorously support each other in an objective sense as their variance should largely agree and both are subjective:

''It is extremely likely that human activities caused more than half of the observed increase in GMST from 1951 to 2010. (+/- 2σ for 0.3C)''

''GHGs contributed a global mean surface warming likely (+/- 1σ range) to be between 0.5°C and 1.3°C over the period 1951–2010, with the contributions from other anthropogenic forcings likely (+/- 1σ range) to be between –0.6°C and 0.1°C, from natural forcings likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C (+/- 1σ range), and from internal variability likely to be between –0.1°C and 0.1°C (+/- 1σ range). Together these assessed contribution are consistent with the observed warming of approximately 0.6°C over this period.''

In a strange way to present it, it's shown in Figure 10.5. GHG and OA form the second statement. ANT forms the first sentence (since it's a 1σ chart, they double the error bars shown on ANT to get the "half" point of the mean of the observed warming. It's not rigorous and it's not explained what the implications of doing this are (probably the biggest is comparing the variance of the observed warming to ANT as the +2σ is mow far outside the observed warming.)

So, while this hopefully sheds light on the math, it's not particularly relevant as it would "Original research" or tl;dr. Bottom line is that Curry's disagreement is only with the rigor differences and the mathematical differences between the final total anthropogenic attribution (95% confidence (+/- 2σ)  that more that 50% is anthropegenic since 1951 ) when the components of that range are not that high in other data. It's a subjective vs. subjective disagreement but not necessarily a disagreement in the underlying science or indeed consensus as many views are presented in the full report. The question that Curry has (and others) is that the subjective statements are made by a select few in the executive summary and an even smaller set for the SPM and the question why/how one statement is chosen and why/how is the 50% mark chosen. It's not so much as disagreeing with the subjective assessment as it could be right, it's asking where it came from for the people that made it to offer more insight as to process. It doesn't naturally fall out from the math (the variance of one statement is 0.075C, while the statement right below it would have a variance of 0.5C for "human activities"). One statement has a relatively low anthropogenic component (0.3 to 0.6, 95% range) with a lower variance, the other is rather high anthropogenic contribution but also a high variance. Both could be correct based on todays data.

For #2 There are at least three steps to the report: the contributing authors, the lead authors, and SPM authors. How particular tidbits of information make it to the main document, the executive summary and the SPM are different. That's obvious from how they require citation. For Curry to disagree that picking one statement over another to summarize the level of understanding and the uncertainty, doesn't mean she disagrees with the science. Both the statements above were in chapter 10. Had the used the second statement "more than half" and "very likely" aren't obvious or supported. Again it's not disagreement with the science but the process used to obtain the subjective statements.

For #3 She appears to question some of the subjective assessments especially related to confidence levels/intervals that appear in the executive summaries and SPMs and how they were chosen over other statements that had different numbers.

For #4 Subjective assessments are fine but they need justification (and that request came from the American Physical Union after AR4 because they recognize it as well). Very few of these estimates are purely rigorous because they are looking at tiny perturbations causing tiny changes. What is missing is the comparison and selection criteria as well as a rigorous explanation for choices and the consequences for making them. This highlights the problem with WP editors assessing primary quotes content against material like AR5. My math above is not rigorous enough nor relevant to the discussion and I'm sure an editor could find issues with it. Nor is my analysis of Curry's opinion particularly relevant. I can say I think I understand it but that insight only shows that there needs to be experts to draw conclusions about her statements, not WP editors. Wikipedia editors that says she clearly disagrees with consensus based on her questioning where 50% came from aren't doing any less WP:OR than the math I did above. --DHeyward (talk) 09:45, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * It is clear that your first paragraph is intended to demonstrate that you have some knowledge of statistics. You achieved that goal, albeit less well than you might imagine. For example, a CDF doesn't "follow" from ANOVA. (Perhaps by "analyses of variance" you meant something other than the plural of "analysis of variance" which is plausible because ANOVA is not the tool used to calculate a CDF?)


 * You said The terms "likely, very likely and virtually certain all follow very closely from the 68–95–99.7 rule. Not as closely as you suggest, unless you mean something different than I do when I say "very closely". For example, "very likely" is 90% not 95%. Virtually certain is 99% not 99.7%, which, as you know, is a very different level.


 * I note you implicitly accept normality. Not an unreasonable assumption in some cases, but I'll disagree in others. For example, while it seems plausible that temperature is rough normal, at least for a couple standard deviations, I doubt that SLR is normal, and definitely has non-normal extremes at the high end. I do not accept independence of errors although I understand why it is computationally convenient.


 * However, I accept that you have more than a layperson's knowledge of stats, and I'm citing differences mainly to make the same point.


 * Regarding your comments on point 2. Are you trying to say that Curry accepts the mean and the "likelihoods", but simply disagrees with the process used to asses the likelihoods? If that is true, I could understand objecting to her inclusion in the article, but I do not think that is true.


 * Regarding your comments on point 3. I believe her challenges are more than simply how they were chosen. I believe she thinks the likelihoods imply more certainty than is warranted.

}}:Regarding your comments on point 4. If you can show evidence she simply questions where the 50% comes from, then I would understand your point. It is my understanding that she doesn't simply question the source, she has serious misgivings about whether it is the right value.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  14:46, 2 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I should have said "extremely likely" which is what they say for overall anthro > 50%. "Extremely likely" is 95%, "likely" (66%) is the term they use for the components.  "Very likely" (90%) was changed from AR4.


 * For analysis of variance, it seems to me the second statement describing the components should match the first statement in some way. They appear to me, just for variances of the different components that it would be difficult to say that a component from the second statement is from the population described in the first statement.  It should be testable that the "likely" range of GHG warming is from the same population as the "extremely likely" > 50% of warming.  Whether the 4 contributions are taken as a whole or as individual samples.  And if you look deeper, they even derated the second statement to "likely" based on a SWAG of error.   The ANOVA is whether anthropogenic components (GHGs as one, other anthro as two - or most likely combining them first) of the second statement fits against the anthropogenic population described in the first (whatever distribution between 50-100% of 0.6C).  Again, it's not necessary for their purpose but it's also not numerically related as far as I can tell.  At least not where they describe on statement derived from the other.
 * For the "more than half", read this .  It has three so-called "skeptics" (Curry, Lindzen, Christy) and three other notable climate scientists (Collins, Held, Santer) that have otherwise not been labeled skeptics.  On page 415, it's in Dr. Isaac Helds' presentation and he actually gets to the chart I mentioned and discusses the two statements (I didn't read his comments before writing above so this was interesting on his take).  Start at page 415-422, then Curry and Collins during discussion pg. 479-489 (486 is the question).  Curry also has her own presentation starting on pg 96.  --DHeyward (talk) 22:57, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * User:DHeyward, I see Curry's comments in pages 479-489. She makes a few points, a couple of which are on-point. One is the extremely technical point that when a group of scientists came up with the 50%, she thinks of it as 50% plus/minus delta (without defining delta) so she is understandably antsy when people talk about more than half. I won't put words in her mouth, but I think she would like the statement to be "more than 50%-delta" which is not exactly the same as more than half. That's the careful scientist at work, and not a major issue. Her second point, more substantive, is that she notes the 50% was derived by expert judgement, rather than rigorous statistics. If these were her only quibbles. I wouldn't support including her i the list. However, it is incomprehensible that she would challenge the 50% as the end of the range, yet concur with the IPCC estimate that the range is 95% certain. That's what I'm looking for. I think she's expressed concern about the 95% and I was asking if you could provide evidence she is fine with the 95% figure.


 * I haven't seen it. Do you think I missed it?-- S Philbrick (Talk)  23:33, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
 * That's a more subtle point brought up better by Lindzen. Once you start adding uncertainty to the 50% point, how does it not affect the overall certainty of the measurement?  In other words, what's the mean and std deviation of the the contribution?  You alluded to it with the remarks that I presumed it was Gaussian which I think is the best case.  But it's never stated.  It's almost like IPCC statement is saying were 95% sure that >50% of the warming is anthropogenic but each point between 50 and 100% has an equal chance.  If it were gaussian, the midpoint would be the mean around 0.15C with a σ=0.075C (slightly off because of where the tail would actually be).  So to numerically get to that type of variance they needs much more robust analysis of mean and certainty which they don't have, whence expert judgement.  The tighter they make the anthropogenic estimate, the looser the contributions from other sources have to be.  Now the response from others would be that anthropogenic causes are 100% of the observed warming and the tails are in the measurement error.  That's also not robust or satisfying because that puts a lot of upside error.  So the question is really about the distribution and can it account for all the warming without having errors outside the known ranges of measurement.  I think the conclusion is they really aren't there yet.  --DHeyward (talk) 00:09, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * You seem interested in whether the numbers "hang" together. That's an interesting line of thought, but not one that interests me. I was pursuing this line, because I thought you were asserting that Curry accepted the numbers, while only disagreeing with how they were constructed, in which case it might not be proper to count her as disagreeing with the IPCC conclusions. I see nothing to support that, in fact it sounds like you have some questions as well.


 * Which brings me back to the fence question - If Curry is fine with the mean estimates of the project temperature, as well as some of the other numbers, and her only point of departure is the confidence estimates associated with the anthropogenic portion, is it fair to characterize her as in support of or in disagreement with the IPCC results. I still think people of good faith can disagree.


 * I urge you to rejoin the discussion, but abandon the attempt to label arguments as BS or obtuse simply because you hold a different opinion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  01:23, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * My objection is that it is not my opinion that should matter. I want reliable sources to classify her as "opposing the consensus".   I can do math all day and it matters not whether she should be included.  The fact that we can't find sources that identify the list criteria nor, can we find sources that identify those that disagree, nor that those that disagree are opposed to the mainstream. It becomes the whim of editors.  Especially because these are statistics, it's especially important that reliable sources are interpreting what the scientists said.  I highlighted the APS report because not only who they invited, but because they came.  For example, if Roy Spencer were invited, I'm not sure Collins would have attended.  I look at it this way: Stephen Hawking has a number of bets with a number of reputable cosmological astrophysicists with whom he disagrees.  Those astrophysicists disagree on minutiae compared to lay people and compared to creationists.  It would be a great disservice to list those dissenting astrophysicists with creationists and flat-earthers because they disagree with Hawking.  Those 6 people in that sitdown with APS are all on the same team and discuss minutia.  The three so-called sceptics are respected enough to be invited by APS and respected enough that three prominent mainstream climatologists will sit with them.  The used first names.  There's something to be said when they all sit at the same table rather than the polar political camps so in that sense, without some really reliable source telling me they are miles apart, I am not going to rely on an interpretation of first person quotes.  --DHeyward (talk) 01:45, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * Of course it is your opinion that matter s(I do catch your point). We don't have a cookie-cutter approach that can do a mathematical match - to see if a certain string of characters "I oppose the consensus" exists, which would fail if someone wrote "I really do oppose the consensus". We established some criteria (which can be debated) and we identify RS to see if it is reasonable to say whether she meets the criteria. I've identified why the criteria could be tightened. If you disagree with some aspect of the consensus, no matter how tiny, then almost all climate scientists would be on the list. So we need to make some assessment of how significant the disagreement is before we would say someone is on the list. I would object tot he article if it were a pure list. It's too analog, not binary enough. I'm more comfortable with a prose article, in which the statement can be listed, and readers can determine whether the point of departure which qualifies them for the list is troubling  enough or satisfactory enough, depending  on the readers personal view of the matter.


 * As an encyclopedia, I think we do our readers a service by spelling out what the consensus view of scientists about global warming happens to be at the moment, and I find it useful to let readers know that some scientists have varying degrees of concern about the consensus. The notion of science taught in elementary school, implying that most of science is black and white, with no dissenters, is not for adults. (Frankly, I have more faith in the ability of younger students to understand nuance, but that's a discussion for another venue).-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:01, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * I agree with that and that belongs in the articles about the science with the alternative views listed according to their weight and adherence. In that sense, published literature by Lindzen, Curry, Christy, etc can be a citation for the ideas they propose that are different.  Neutrino, for example, is a much better way to deal with it.  A list, by definition is black or white.  ---DHeyward (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * Did you really mean to analogize those who do not completely accept the IPCC view as flat-earthers? I hope you were trying to go to extremes to make a point.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  02:05, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

No, I meant that our criteria would be fine if another source established as THE criteria and there were sources that established particular scientists met the criteria for notability and listing. Policy prevents us from explicitly weighing a quote against a scientific criteria. It also prevents us from forming the criteria that lists people in a false light. Look at the last addition, Murray Salby. He's not a known scientist. He left his last U.S. job under a cloud and was fired from a post in Australia. His article was created 3 days ago and he was just added to the list. There is no way that it is acceptable to link his science and views to a list of reputable scientist. I don't equate Curry, Lindzen and Christy with alleged frauds like Salby but some do and they are relentlessly trying to tie legitimate and respected scientists to charlatans. Imagine we have a list "List of Actors who have won Oscars" - very well sourced, criteria very well established. "List of Actors who have been nominated but have never won an oscars". Now, for some reason, someone creates a list of "Lost of Actors that have won Oscars but shouldn't have or have never won an Oscar" and created criteria like lack of golden globes, quotes by leading members of the committee or acknowledging the acting ability of the other nominees in their acceptance speech and at the same time naming second rate actors and porn stars in the same list because they are "actors that haven't and shouldn't win.". We have a list of distinguished academics along with charlatans. The list disparages their life work with nothing more than their own quotes being interpreted by non-peers to mean they oppose established scientific fact (it's hollow to argue that "disagreeing with scientific consensus" doesn't mean that). I listed the policy and we explicitly violate them. I try to see another view but can't get past that I (nor anyone here) meet the RS policy for using quotes. Think of a "List of people who have expressed prejudicial views" and we broke it down into gender bias, racial bias, sexual preference, etc. Then created our own list of words that wikipedia gleaned from the AP style manuals of words to avoid, and then started to compare quotes that people made against words to avoid and listed people that used them. Nevermind that the AP would never label them that way, even though it's their style guide. This is exactly what we have done.

It's not that I can't see logic that connects the quote to to criteria. Nor is it hard to find the criteria. But my logic that a scientist belongs and my belief that the criteria are the definition of consensus aren't what WP requires. --DHeyward (talk) 03:36, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
 * I'm on board with the notion it would be good to be more careful with the selection criteria. It doesn't trouble me enough to take the initiative, but if someone proposes something that works, I could support it. On the other hand, I think your intimation that this is a wall of shame is not shared by all, in particular, not shared by many on the list. Those two thoughts may be connected; if it really was a sign of disgrace to be listed, it would be much more important to be very, very careful about inclusion.-- S Philbrick (Talk)  13:40, 3 March 2014 (UTC)


 * The "wall of shame" is going to depend on the scientist and their motives. This is where the politics and policy come into play.  Curry is vocal and gets congressional play time not because of her research or scientific views.  It's mostly because she plays down the consequences and policy reaction to global warming.  A scientist could agree on all the major scientific points but if they say it's not worth acting on, they will find themselves on the list.  Insignificant scholars that are accused of crimes manage to become notable and added to the list.  Scientists whose viewpoints depart greatly from consensus but advocate political change won't be added.  there are those on the list that don't mind being contrarian but I can't imagine any of them want to be on the same list as Salby.  It's not so much the list as it is the association.  It would be like a list of scientists that question the accuracy of carbon dating: some on the list could have simple doubts about ranges and accuracy, others on the list doubt it based on religious belief that the shroud of turin was Jesus' burial cloth so carbon dating must be wrong.  The scientist might not mind being on a list that disputes accuracy based on scientific claims but they also don't want to be confused with others that dispute it on religious grounds (or worse, criminals that use it to profit illegally).  I wouldn't mind a list of all climate scientists with various views but this list targets a small subset of only contrarian positions and attracts the eyes and edits of ideologues more than scientists.  --DHeyward (talk) 16:30, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Notice of ANI discussion
There is currently a discussion at Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents regarding an issue with which you may have been involved. The thread is Page protection at Bundy standoff. --- Barek (talk • contribs) - 04:36, 20 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the heads-up, DHeyward. After reviewing several hundred edits, I have proffered a rather strong opinion on the subject at ANI. Eaglizard (talk) 21:37, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Move review notification
Because you participated in the most recent discussion regarding the proposed move of Hillary Rodham Clinton, you are hereby notified per Canvassing that the administrative determination of consensus from that discussion is being challenged at Move review/Log/2014 May. Please feel free to comment there. Cheers! bd2412 T 19:20, 20 May 2014 (UTC)