User talk:Hg29hh

friendly wiki tips
Hi, welcome.

is the only way to follow it all. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 18:02, 29 August 2013 (UTC) PS and what I keep forgetting to do.... try to remember to preview your posts!
 * 1, On talk pages, always "sign" your post by typing ~.
 * 2, Use colons to indent, so as to thread messages. This lets us quickly tell to whom you are replying.  Lots of times multiple sub-conversations get going and proper indenting
 * 3, All new users (and lots of senior ones) will benefit from regular review of WP:TALK

Not a forum
Wikipedia is not a forum. Do not use it as a forum. We are not here to debunk your misunderstandings about science, this is not a debating society. Your attempts at soapboxing merely wastes our time better spent on editing, so please keep WP:NOTFORUM posts and advocacy to yourself, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

re. http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf

Wikipedia is not a forum. Do not use it as a forum. We are not here to debunk your misunderstandings about science, this is not a debating society. Your attempts at soapboxing merely wastes our time better spent on editing, so please keep WP:NOTFORUM posts and advocacy to yourself, IRWolfie- (talk) 08:27, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

I do not wish to debate this issue here, or to use Wikipedia as a forum. I do not wish to participate as an author. I do wish to persuade the author to look at facts, in the light of up-to-date information. The facts speak for themselves. I cannot let your unconstructive outburst pass. The histogram is misleading the public in a treasured facility, Wikipedia, that I contribute to financially. Your attitude is a disgrace: and furthermore, who has the "misunderstanding"?. I not want to see Wikipedia used for political, as opposed to scientific, ends. The recent article that I have just cited has a large international team of scientists of high esteem and indicates clearly that the author of the histogram is wrong, in two respects 1: in terms of climate science and 2: in terms of the number of scientist who oppose the IPCC view. He/she has only to look at the evidence, and there is of course far more evidence than the report I cited. I mentioned it because it summarises the evidence so well and so succinctly and so authoritatively. I cannot see how the author could possibly avoid revising that histogram in the light of up-to-date evidence. There is another issue: I have had nothing to do with designing Wikipedia's unusual formal procedures, which do not seem to be designed for a reader merely wishing to make a helpful suggestion. I would regard it as constructive if consideration was given to revising Wikipedia's formal procedures to cover circumstances like this, and making them less vulnerable to use as a block to hide behind and make rude remarks! You might have shown respect for my interest, if not gratitude. Apart from that, please leave me out of it. We do agree on one thing: there are other places for debate. Hg29hh (talk) 10:02, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * Ok, so you say you are not here to work on articles but to get people to look at facts that speak for themselves....
 * First, if the facts speak for themselves why do they need you?
 * Second, you just said you are not here to work on articles but to get eds to look at those facts you say speak for themselves.  Question:  What good derives from watching self-speaking facts flap their lips?  I mean, I never learned to read lips, much less the lips of facts, so looking at facts while they stand up their droning on and on seems sort of pointless, unless they happen to be very attractive lips, but even so admiration of fluttering lips from afar gets sort of boring after awhile, and we get back to it being rather pointless.
 * Finally, the privilege of participation here does not extend to doing battle or just posting to make a point.  Such conduct merits a formal warning from an uninvolved admin and formal logging of the warning.  After that, admins can impose sanctions at any time.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:34, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * The facts do not need me, You need them!  If I thought that you were typical of Wikipediia, I would terminate my subscription immediately.  Suppression of information should not be part of it.  Nor should high-handed and ill-considered control.  I'm glad that there on other pages in Wikipedia where it could well be productive to attempt to contribute, and certainly there are other places in the wider world.  I predict that the histogram in question will be discredited and become an embarrassment.  Perhaps you will consider using some of your time more usefully, and examine recent, and scientifically powerful evidence that should refresh your views.  The full report is over 800 pages long, but the summary which I referenced is excellent.  Have you even read that. and considered it?  Moreover, to get back to the issue (for a change!), have you looked at the number of, and qualifications of, the scientists involved in the organisation that produced it?  Do you consider that you know better them all, in the various specialist fields that they cover?  I note  your continued avoidance of real issues in favour of use (abuse?) of protocol, and I can see why! (how on earth did I get into this?!) Hg29hh (talk) 11:26, 21 September 2013 (UTC)
 * To answer your last question, I'd suggest one explanation is a failure on your part to adhere to the talk page guidelines; however I also suggest that a better question is how to get out and one good answer to that is WP:DROPTHESTICK NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:58, 21 September 2013 (UTC)


 * I will happily act on that suggerstion. There's nothing to be gained when faced with a Genghis Khan equivalent in charge of a Wikipedia page. Hg29hh (talk) 17:13, 21 September 2013 (UTC)

New user
Hi Hg29hh. As a new user you might want to take a look at the Wikipedia policies and guidelines WP:PG. What is often hard for new users to get their heads around is that as an encyclopedia, Wikipedia is merely a collection of articles about content that is reliably sourced., and what is a RS is often hard for users to understand, old and new users alike. I'm sorry you were treated as you were as a new user, very unfortunate and hope you'll consider staying around anyway, learning the ropes, and contributing to Wikipedia. Even if you only wish to discuss the topic on its talk page taking a look at the policies and guidelines would be of help in getting your points across. All best wishes.(olive (talk) 21:09, 21 September 2013 (UTC))


 * Hello Litttleolive. Thanks for your entry to the conversation and understanding. It raises a problem. I am not a climate scientist. However, as a scientist, I do have much experience in parallel fields and have read a great deal of published material by proponents and skeptics of AGW (Anthropogenic Global Warming), and commentators who have studied this vast subject. This leads me to the conclusion that the histogram on this page is a political statement, and not a soundly-based statistical one. I know that to demonstrate this convincingly would take not hours or days of work, but weeks. IPCC members and followers are renowned for such claims and more than that, are renowned for attacking people rather than science or statistics when their material is unsubstantiated and challenged. The organisation has a political birth. I'm not participating in that. Wikipedia is responsible for uploading this histogram. As a user passing by this page, I tried to give a key starting point (later removed) for demonstrating the weakness of the histogram. This is a substantial academic report by the NIPCC (Non-Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) which points to the concerns of numerous and well qualified scientists concerned about IPCC conclusions, and it does lead indirectly to questioning of the validity of the histogram. ( http://heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/CCR-II/Summary-for-Policymakers.pdf). It does not provide an equivalent histogram for immediate comparison. This gets me to my point. Wikipedia seems to have no simple mechanism for a casual reader with specialist training and knowledge to point the finger at an entry that he sees as requiring further consideration. Moreover, protective measures prevent such a reader simply leaving a key link such as the one I have just mentioned - as a footnote perhaps. One sentence containing the reference would suffice to enable impartial readers to follow up the subject and make up their own minds. It would of course take time for them to do this. I do accept your criticism about my not following Wikipedia protocol. I apologise for that, but it was maatter of time, and I am not seeking to get involved as an author in a case like this. It will almost inevitably result in protracted, time-consuming and ill-mannered arguments, and there are preliminary indications of that above. May I suggest that Wikipedia might like to consider if it is possible to provide a facility to meet this kind of situation? I have of course every intention to continue to use and support such a wonderful concept as Wikipedia as a whole. If I felt that I had something to contribute as an author, I would expect to observe the protocols, which despite their intricacy, no doubt have good purpose. Hg29hh (talk) 11:47, 22 September 2013 (UTC)
 * We already have that facility. You can read all about it at dispute resolution.   You might also review the archives of the many time Heartland has been debated at the reliable sources noticeboard, and the outcome was never favorable. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:18, 23 September 2013 (UTC)