User talk:IanOfNorwich

Trespass
The "license" refers not to a simple verbal or written agreement (which would be classified as a contract, already mentioned). Within property law, a license is an agreement attached not to the parties but to the land itself, and is part of the documents associated with that piece of land. As such, some licenses are revocable (contractual ones) but most are part of the deeds; similar to a right of access, say. Ironholds (talk) 21:36, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Edit
Yes I do not think it makes much difference either way. I was going with "Foods high in simple sugars should be avoided" Doc James  (talk · contribs · email) 00:01, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of XFOIL


The article XFOIL has been proposed for deletion&#32; because of the following concern:
 * no indication of Notability

While all contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, content or articles may be deleted for any of several reasons.

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the  notice, but please explain why in your edit summary or on the article's talk page.

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing  will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. The speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and articles for deletion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion. Weaponbb7 (talk) 00:32, 2 August 2010 (UTC)

Fence post errors in the Julian calendar
I don't think what you wrote is correct, see discussion at Talk:Julian calendar --Chris Bennett (talk) 17:55, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

Hello
It seems from your last 500 contribs that you're not particularly interested in football(!), but given the all-round contributions of this man to Norwich, I thought that you might be interested in joining the small group of us trying to push the biography of Bryan Gunn to Featured status. --Dweller (talk) 15:40, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, I'm delighted to be asked so will take a look; but you are spot on I'm not much of a footie fan so not sure how much use I'll be there....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:26, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Grand. There's a to-do list on the talk page, if you're interested. On non-football issues, we're struggling with information about his early life in particular. We've also got next to nothing about his current business career. Good to have you. --Dweller (talk) 10:01, 15 March 2011 (UTC)

Ozone is so bracing
Thanks for picking up the misunderstanding about the bracing effects on ozone, interesting news. As a non-expert I've tried to help with tweaking the news item, hope all's reasonably ok now. Or at least as much as can be expected. . . dave souza, talk 20:52, 6 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Seems fine now, though I'm not really an expert myself. Having spent quite a bit of time on the global warming pages lately where the smallest thing gets picked over to see that on the main page was quite a shock. There is a lot of misinformation around on the subject and I feared that was part of it, though I see it was likely no more than an understandable error. The troposphere is warming and the stratosphere cooling (beneath plenty of variability) so the main page agrees with my perception of reality so no need to edit either one! --IanOfNorwich (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

Move Florida geolgy -> Geology of Florida
Thanks for the suggestion, I was not aware of that convention, this move also fixed a bunch of red links. TimL (talk) 02:49, 2 May 2011 (UTC)
 * Oh good, neither was I but it seemed nicer :)--IanOfNorwich (talk) 23:01, 2 May 2011 (UTC)

The scientific consensus is that global
Hi Ling.Nut, I agree with you that the link is valuable - there might be a place for that in the lede still I'll see if I can get that in. The reason I changed the sentence is that it was *so* defensive. What we have now is a plain statement of fact. For someone coming to this topic for the first time I think that is better than leading the to the controversy first. The lede should be simple straightforward. I know no one has a monoploy on the truth, indeed no one can know the truth on anything - the world's to complex and all interconnected but if we aren't about striving towards the unachevable goal (of having wikipedia reflect the truth) then what are we doing here?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:32, 17 July 2011 (UTC) You are in favour of teaching the controversy then?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:53, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi. Why did you rm the text "The scientific consensus is that global" from the WP:LEDE? I don't give a crap about Truth TM, which is what all the AGW and nti-AGW folks are trying to take possession of on-wiki. I just happen to think that you removed an extremely high-value link (doing damage to the version read by all later readers) by removing valuable information. – Ling.Nut 02:26, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * what we are doing here is striving for the eminently achievable goal of verifiability first and above all;  the difficult but still reachable goal of WP:NPOV second, and I forgot what's third but it ain't Truth. ;-) Read WP:LEDE. Controversies must go in the lede, and shouldn't be buried in its nether regions either...  – Ling.Nut 08:42, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do we want a verifiable encyclopedia(I agree we do)?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 08:55, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I love the 5 pillars and agree that content should be verifiable. I have not (and don't intend to) add unverifiable content.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:01, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Re teaching the controversy, I don't give a crap what folks in America teach (or more accurately, I kinda do, but not really very strongly, and certainly not in the context of this conversation). I'm in favor of WP:5P. Re: WP:V, because it is a first line of defense against "shit people make up on the Internet". :-) – Ling.Nut 08:57, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

My point re teaching the controversy is that that is is major tactic of pro fossil fuel PR with regard to global warming - keep people wondering if it is true then they won't demand action.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC) I absolutely agree that we should not be in camps! However the outside world does have an influence on wikipedia and it's important to understand why there is such a polarization of views which leads to many of the problems with the global warming article. There has been a tenancy there to shut out certain contributors on GW rather than engage positively with them that encourages anti-social behavior. What is AGF, btw? I agree that wikipedia's purpose isn't to resolve controversies. The lede of the Global warming article should be a succinct intro to that topic. Look at the article on gravity it doesn't say that it is the scientific consensus etc. it just states the verifiable facts (as should the GW lede). I DO NOT want to suppress the fact that some people dispute the existence of GW, because they (verifyably) do or that there is an opposing scientific consensus. I just don't think that it is of sufficient weight to go in the lede twice. I have been around here a few years and I have read WP:LEDE a couple of times (and practically live life by NPOV) and from what I remember of WP:LEDE I try to follow it. You may have noticed that I've returned the link to the GW lede in the second sentence. Basically we have just that pointing out the scientific consensus rather than it being said twice in the first paragraph. Hope that is OK.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:43, 17 July 2011 (UTC) Well they might do but I'd fall back on verifiable facts same as I would with the gravity deniers (Newton was wrong of course). The link is back in (third sentence "not rejected"). Ah, AFG (you should have said :-) Again one I try to live by. --IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:56, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * (ec) Re WP:V: Cool. Then the next steps are WP:NPOV and WP:LEDE. Those (particulalrly the latter) are the ones that I would suggest are relevant to the deletion that started this thread. Even more, it's a simple matter of user-centric information ordering. It's all three of those things. Re Big Oil: I don't give a crap what Big Oil does, and neither should you (in the specific context of Wikipedia, at least), because if you do then you are a part of the problem rather than the solution. I don't mean that the controversies don't have their place; I mean that their place isn't here. the problem with AGF on AGW articles is folks who mentally divide the issue into camps "Big Oil" andf "Big Al". They just argue and edit war all over each other. 'Nuff said.  – Ling.Nut 09:10, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * If you've been around Wikipedia for a while, you should know what WP:AGF is... I'm unlikely to edit the article. I have no time for their crap, at least not at present. I'm also unlikely to read it closely and try to determine if one mention or two of the controversy is "enough'... but I still think the link you deleted should go back in. It's all about making information available to the reader. Also, well.... you know.... I hate to say this, but the anti-AGW crowd would say your position is POV whenever you equate AGW and gravity...but whatever.  – Ling.Nut 09:50, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Ok. Later. – Ling.Nut 10:04, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * As you'll both have noted, I've tried modifying the wording a little, and have commented on the talk page about the issue of undue weight being given to the tiny minority of scientists whose views are promoted by industrial groups, and appear in conservative media like the Wall Street Journal rather than in peer reviewed publications and scientific discourse. There's clearly a dispute between environmentalists and big business, the difficulty is in accurately representing scientific findings when mass media promote contrarian views as though they're equally valid. . . dave souza, talk 10:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)
 * For dave and ian, you guys restored your favored language while I was asleep, apparently citing yourselves as consensus. No offense, but you are purely partisan editors. I have no time for such.   This article desperately needs WP:FAR, but no one wants the headache.  – Ling.Nut 02:43, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * It was I who restored "finding" not dave souza, though he and User:NewsAndEventsGuy registered their support that the change should happen, the timing was my own. Unsurprisingly I didn't know you were asleep. Your last comment above was "OK.Later" which I took as some degree of acquiescence. You accuse us of being purely partisan editors, that is untrue and unfair. I want Wikipedia to be accurate and useful and I have a degree of humility about my understanding of the world. I'm willing to engage open-mindedly with anyone on the substance of this or any other topic on which I might contribute and as I have already stated only add verifiable material. So how am I partisan? Because I do have an understanding of the subjects that I contribute to, the same as you or anyone else does. Unfortunately we are on the topic of me as an editor rather than the substance any change, which in any case is best talked about on the relevant talk page.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:01, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't really have anything else to add to this conversation, but am responding out of courtesy. I certainly am not going to go to the talk page of the article, nor will I edit it again in the near future. No time, and no desire to spend weeks running around in circles... My edits retained precisely the contents of the lede before I touched it, except that the link (which is an WP:EGG), was made explicit, and the flow was improved (to a very minor degree, and perhaps even "arguably")... I was not trying to press any "teach the controversy" agenda (as dave put it). Saying that I was is purely against AGF. But no matter. All I was doing was tidying up an EGG. That's all... Have fun with the article. I will not touch it again (though... someone should WP:FAR it on grounds of 1(e), it won't be me... ). Good luck in all you do. – Ling.Nut 12:34, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * With regret, must point out that Ling.Nut2's accusation of "purely partisan editors" is both a failure to WP:AGF and a personal attack, even though undoubtedly made with the best of intentions. While agreeing with the point that we should avoid EGGs, I appear to differ from Ling in thinking that WP:WEIGHT requires that "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view". Hopefully this is more a disagreement about how best to meet that policy. . . dave souza, talk 14:49, 18 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Dave, crying "WP:NPA!" is the very first (and very best) line of defense of partisan editors, because they know that the issue at hand is their personal editing behavior (that is, the issue is themselves rather than the topic)... so if the issue is themselves, and others must address that issue, then those others must talk about that editor, and hey presto! we have an opening for calling it NPA...  WP:LEDE says all controversies go in the lede. Period. Final. And hiding it behind an EGG is eliding the rule as well... I only came to fix an egg; you came to press a partisan view. That's all.  – Ling.Nut 01:05, 19 July 2011 (UTC)
 * WP:LEDE says "include mention of notable criticism or controversies" not "all period". My view is that the naming of potentially linked material should not govern the choice of words in an article, but the words should be chosen on their merits and the links come next. In any case discussions of content are best done on the relevant talk page because assuming we agree something (and I trust given long enough we would) others may still have a different view.--IanOfNorwich (talk)
 * Unfortunately Ling.Nut2 appears to be more interested in prejudging other editors. We should indeed improve coverage of "controversies" in the article. The lead should summarise the content, and improved coverage in the article should come first. Hope to assist with that sometime. What we should not have is misleading statements or links in the lead giving a false impression of disunited opinions where there is a solid near-universal consensus within science. That's even more of an EGG than the piped links discussed earlier. Coverage of controversy should be explicitly about the controversy concerned, and should be clear about the weight of expert opinion. Adds to todo list :-/ . . dave souza, talk 16:59, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Warning
You've been around long enough. Mark your reverts as such. Thanks. -Atmoz (talk) 21:35, 17 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, an excellent example of constructive consensus seeking
Ian, just wanted to thank your for your obvious skills in remaining constructive when consensus seems slow to arrive NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 09:51, 20 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Takes a bit of faith sometimes. You show a remarkable combination of passion and objectivity, NAEG, and I think it paid off. Plenty still to do though as dave notes above.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:03, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Creative Commons license for graphics
Hi Ian, Thanks for your interest in the climate graphic I posted recently. FYI, the license for that graphic (Creative Commons 3.0) requires attribution to the original author, so if you want to go with your revised image, which is fine with me, I think it should say something like "Modified from (my version of the cite) and based on research by (Doran paper)." Or if you don't want to use the full cite I originally posted it at least needs to say John Cook and Skeptical Science. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I thought that as I uploaded it as a modification of the original graphic that the attribution was implicit. If there is somewhere that an attribution is needed I'm happy to add it or for it to be added (Where?). I hope you don't mind the modification but the previous one simply wasn't supported by the sources. It's not as neat as the original but things rarely are neat when you look at the detail. I think the graphic is a great addition, btw, but just think we have to be scrupulous about accuracy and that holding ourselves to a high standard in that regard will help in the long run.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:30, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No I don't mind the tweak. Technically, I don't know the legalities of attribution, but just think about it from the original author's perspective.  Most readers will pass by a wiki article and see an image.  In this case it won't be necessary to see the image full size at wiki commons with the whole history.  Nor will most readers swim thru the article history and see an old version of the article.  Therefore, most readers will never see that John Cook of Skeptical Science was the original author.  I know for a fact that the skepSci crew discussed licensing specifically to allow for posting on wiki, and they had a team consensus to adopt the Creative Commons 3.0 license.   Legalities aside, I'm thinking most artists would want credit for every viewing, not just credit by ultra nerds (a term of affection BTW) who find it in the archives or wiki commons post, so IMO, credit needs to go in the caption or supporting citation on every article where the image is used.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2011 (UTC)
 * HOLD THE PRESSES. Maybe I do mind the tweak.  I did not read the other paper cited in the skep sci column, but Nigelj did.  See discussion at Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change.   N makes suggests the strict counting approach you used based on Doran ("75 out of 79") creates a conflict with Anderberg's results in the other paper.  Suggest you add any comments on this to the thread on the talk page I just linked to. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 01:44, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Global warming evidence
Ian,

thanks for the offer of empirical evidence. As you may be aware the discussion got pulled - if you aren't aware this always happens to any discussion where the sceptics have a valid point. But as I'm seriously looking for any warmist papers with empirical evidence, let's just say I'll be happy to hear what you have to say.

PS. I do have a signon to Wikipedia but by way of protest at the censorship on global warming I am refusing to use it ... (which is another way of saying I've learnt from bitter experience that I haven't a hope in hell of ever getting any edits in climate articles so I've decided "I don't want to play")88.104.207.14 (talk) 19:54, 23 August 2011 (UTC)


 * My belief is that were people differ, open minded discussion is usually beneficial to both. The global warming talk page isn't the right place for such a general discussion. Arguably my talk page isn't either, but as we are Wikipedians taking an interest in climate change related articles it can't be bad for Wikipedia that we gain a more nuanced view of the subject. I imagine that our two understandings of the topic currently differ quite a bit so I don't expect we can reach any kind of shared understanding just by me pointing out a paper or two. However, I do think that given sufficient patience on both our parts we might do so. Basically I'd like to have the conversation, provided it is approached by both of us in the spirit of seeking understanding rather than trying to 'win' a debate. One aspect of that would be not using terms like 'warmist' or 'denier'. Also I should point out I'm not an expert on climate science just someone who has taken an interest in it.
 * I imagine this might go elsewhere but you asked about feedbacks - ie climate sensitivity, right? In particular you were interested in empirical evidence. I've read a bit of some papers that try to establish climate sensitivity by looking at the paleontological climate record, another route is look at the recent (since instrumental records) forcing and temperature change and see what the sensitivity is - though the problem with that is that the inertia (the heat capacity of the air and oceans) means it's hard to tell how far from equilibrium we are. Here's one that looks at paleoclimate though I don't have access to the full text: . Here is another that looks at recent temperature changes: which can be downloaded. These are just a couple I dug up with google scholar there are plenty more. I can't find it at the mo but there is a good synthesis of various estimates of climate sensitivity somewhere....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:13, 23 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, thanks for the links. Unfortunately, these both really fall in the "climate model" category which I've specifically rejected as empirical evidence. The reason for this is that I can't count fitting a model to data as empirical, because it doesn't test that there is a causal link, only that parameters can be chosen to make the curve fit. However, (unlike Wikipedia) I might add a category of "non-empirical evidence" to ensure I'm not being unfair to warmists (and what on earth do you call someone who isn't a sceptic ... the "warmist" label is simply a short hand for "someone who is not sceptical of the large global warming that ...".


 * And Ian, just to let you know, I started with the global warming at a time when I was like you: a believer. I honestly tried to put a link to an article on peak oil (purely because I found it interesting) and I was utterly horrified with the response on the article. Seeing that there was a big argument, and being on the warmist side but having seen the disgraceful behaviour to the sceptics, I honestly thought I could help to mediate. The simple truth, is that I tried to mediate, I remember some very simple sentence, and I tried for a week to try and find a form of words which were acceptable to the warmists. The simple fact, is that nothing that explained what was happening was acceptable to the warmists. Eventually, I became so disallusioned of the warmists that I said to myself: "I cannot continue to believe there is evidence for manmade global warming unless or until I actually see it for myself" ... in other words I had to stop assuming that it was there and stop taking assurances. It took me around a month of searching to find that where ever I looked, the supposed evidence just evaporated. Eventually, I set myself a test and said: "there are known benefits for a warmer climate (less deaths from cold) ... I don't need a degree in climate science to know that, so I will go and check as many papers on the effects of global warming and see howmany mention the known benefits." After check around 100 papers from University websites, I had totally failed to find any that listed any of the list of benefits I had set as the test". I think one mentioned "there are benefits" without mentioning what they were, but overwhelmingly they totally failed to outline the clear and obvious benefits of warming.


 * At that point, I realised that not only had I been misled, not only had I been extremely gullible, but worse, because I had been quite vocal spreading the global warming thesis, I had actively misled an enormous number of people and common decency meant I should try to make amends and do something to dispel the nonsense I had found.


 * And to be quite honest, when I started, I would have been quite content if Wikipedia had just honestly listed the arguments and evidence asserted by the sceptics. Quite literally: "the evidence for warming is this, this, this, but some people disagree for these reasons". Just a factual article, factually giving the evidence for, and factually giving the evidence against.


 * But now, we've gone way beyond that. The evidence is now overwhelmingly on the sceptic side ... that is to say, that the science only supports less than 1C of warming, and anything greater is unsubstantiated speculation. But that doesn't mean I would leave out the evidence on positive feedbacks. Honestly, I can't see why some people have a problem just stating the facts - both those they agree with and those they don't. I really do think that the best way to win an argument is to show all the evidence, explain why you come to the conclusion you do, and then let other people look at the evidence and let them come to the same conclusion.


 * Anyway ... thanks for the information, I do appreciate it ... even if I'm going to have to think about how to use it. 88.104.194.119 (talk) 21:04, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, some contributers to the Global warming pages are more than a bit spikey. I certainly don't think the way everyone who edits those pages discusses the topic in the best possible way. But I look at the reasons why they are like that and can, at least partly, see why. It is an important topic whatever way you view it (grievous hoax or it is a serious threat). Combine the seriousness of topic with the fact that it is much easier to have an argument in text than face to face and a general public lack of understanding of the topic and you tend to get rather irate editors. It shouldn't and doesn't have to be that way but I think that's what's happened.


 * But more importantly it doesn't seem to make sense to base your views on how nice you think its proponents are. If you did you'd always follow a charlatan rather than a scientist - Charlatans have much better people skills. The way to decide seems to me to be to look at the evidence. Which brings us to the question of what is empirical evidence? My view is that fundamentally there is no empirical evidence of anything - you can say somethings more empirical than something else but every measurement you take or observation you make depends on assumptions you have about the world and the way it works. One example is measuring temperature with a thermometer (just trying to find the temperature of a room) - making the measurement requires all sorts of assumptions (or models) about how the world works such as that the coefficient of thermal expansion of the liquid in the thermometer has a constant value; that the container is impermeable to the liquid; that the thermometer is at the same temp as the air in the room. The papers I linked, at least in part, seemed fairy empirical to me in that they include estimates of climate sensitivity that don't depend on computer models. To quote from the abstract of one "An alternative to model-based estimates is in principle available from the reconstruction of past climates, which implicitly includes cloud feedback. Here we retrieve the sensitivity of two palaeoclimates, one colder and one warmer than present, by independently reconstructing both the equilibrium surface temperature change and the radiative forcing.", while the title of the other is "An Observationally Based Estimate of the Climate Sensitivity", I haven't read it in detail but it does appear to live up to it's title doesn't it? You say that "the science only supports less than 1C of warming" - but what is the evidence of that?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 22:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Ian, I will take another look at the papers, but as I say, I was looking for empirical evidence ... ideally evidence "testing" of the hypothesis. That's why I don't like "back projections". The minimum would be a forward prediction and a comparison to data. ... BUT AS I SAID, (UNLIKE WIKIPEDIA) I DON'T WANT TO FRAME THE REQUIREMENT IN A WAY THAT RULES OUT ONE SIDE, SO I'LL TAKE ANOTHER LOOK.
 * "As for niceness", it's not the "niceness", its the lack of any meaningful attempt to find a compromise on the warmist side. As I said, it must of been a couple of weeks as a pro-warmist, trying to find a form of words that would cover the sentence, and nothing has changed since ... it may have been "some dispute the hockey stick" ... which on reflection seems very modest now. In the end it was a simple calculation. If it took weeks of my time to NOT GET NPOV on one sentence, when it was plainly obvious to me AS A WARMIST that the sceptic position had to be included, it was absolutely senseless to try editing the hundreds of other sentences. I think every other sceptic has made the same calculation ... it's not worth trying to edit wikipedia ... the bias is obvious to those who read widely on the subject, so in a sense, the best way to signal to people that the articles are not credible, is to allow them to be so warmist in viewpoint that anyone reading widely will see the bias. In other words, one only needs to look at a few websites to find debate about the 21st century "cooling", the climategate "hide the decline" and the problems with measurement equipment. One doesn't have to be some extremist "denier", to read about these issues and any reasonable person would expect a neutral article on Wikipedia to discuss these aspects of global warming. ... so perversely, the best strategy of the sceptics has long been to not encourage Wikipedia to cover any of the argument from a sceptic position ... that way, it's almost as if it were labelled "WARNING THIS ARTICLE WAS WRITTEN BY WARMISTS AND DOES NOT INCLUDE ANY OF THE EVIDENCE SUPPORTING THE SCEPTIC VIEW" ... which means people go look at our websites for our views, which is just fine by us!


 * The thread was "pulled", i.e., it was collapsed for the reason that you were only debating issues. You weren't talking about a specific change you wanted to make to the article.   If you write some draft text you might get more traction.  Check user Enescot's contributions for examples where he puts draft text, with citations, on talk pages.  Some eventually gets included, some doesn't.  If you just want to debate the concept you won't get far.  Conceptual debates happen elsewhere, and it is our job to report them, within the wiki framework for sources, weight etc.  And don't feel bad, recently I collapsed one of TS' threads, and he's someone who appears to give a lot of weight to the mainstream scientific view.  My collapses are not content driven, they are wiki talk page guideline driven, period.  But if you do feel you have a grievance with my collapses there is a dispute resolution process you can follow, and I'll participate.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 23:10, 29 August 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think you should feel bad about removing that thread NewsAndEventsGuy, because, as you say it wasn't about specific content. As the IP user says he 'doesn't want to play anymore' and while it happened to be a vaguely interesting link (which I read) the Global Warming Talk page wasn't necessarily the place to post it. Btw my comments about some people who edit the global warming articles weren't aimed at you (they weren't aimed at anyone but if they were it wouldn't be you).--IanOfNorwich (talk) 06:35, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for kind words, Ian. When I have anything to feel bad about, I apologize, and no worries... I didn't take your comment as being aimed at me (though I confess some folks did come to my own mind).  BTW, I lurk on your talk page here because we're involved in several constructive discussions and I've noticed newcomers to a chat often wander into personal talk space instead of just boldly joining in at the appropriate place... hope you don't mind.NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:26, 30 August 2011 (UTC)
 * NewsAndEventsGuy, this is nothing personal. Under the rules of Wikipedia you were probably right to pull the comments, but then again if I were black in the south pre-civil rights, I could say the same about enacting race legislation. The problem is not that majority of editors intentionally create a POV article, but that because Wikipedia tends to attract people of a like mind, and because that like mind is pro-warming and hostile to sceptics, you not only do not attract the sceptics, but when you do get sceptics they are treated in the most disdainful way -- in other words like a lynch mob. This isn't anyone's "Fault", it's just a natural tendency of groups to tend to support their own and be hostile to outsiders. E.g. when dealing with racism, it is quite possible to believe you are not a racist, but to e.g. believe in racial stereotypes which cause you to behave in a racist way. That is why racism usually requires pro-active policies to get rid of racism.


 * Likewise, Wikipedia has to have pro-active policies to ensure it includes the sceptic position. Indeed, the biggest problem Wikipedia now faces is finding any sceptics willing to work with what most sceptics see as a completely one-sided coverage. And ... of course there are disruptive sceptics, just as there are disruptive warmists. The problem is that none of the reasonable sceptics who have tried to edit Wikipedia have been able to do so. I think in schools, the total absence of inclusion leads to what they call "attention deficit disorder". In schoolchildren that is measured in minutes. In my case, I've totally given up any intention to edit Wikipedia because I'm not wasting my time on the pretence of the "discussion" when the end result is always refusal if it is sceptical ... why bother with the discussion, when you can just skip to the anger that is the inevitable consequence of trying to edit climate articles on Wikipedia.
 * I see what you are saying about the Global Warming article not including a 'skeptic viewpoint'. I think part of the problem there is that there are people who (for motives best known to themselves) come up with arguments against every aspect of global warming. It's possible to come up with an argument for or against anything, so which ones to include? If we include all of them the article becomes nonsense.
 * The way I got into all this was after talking to a skeptic; he told me that the satellite data showed no warming. So I thought I'd go to Wikipedia to find the facts (and in my experience with the right caution it's not a bad place to look for facts). What I found at Satellite temperature measurements was a mess - not the Wikipedia I'm used to at all. There were lots of unconnected facts pulled from journals, a lot of them clearly trying to push an anti global warming POV and bits POVing back. The article is much better now (with only minuscule contributions from me) and bits have been split off, I'm still working on UAH satellite temperature dataset which still has a mess in the middle section. BTW what I found when I researched the topic was that the satellite data definitely does show warming, even the data as produced by Christy and Spencer shows significant warming (though others had to point out the errors that they were making before they corrected them), so there was a grain of truth in the skeptic line (ie at one point in the 1990's the UAH dataset didn't show warming but since it's been corrected - mostly for the satellites orbital decay) but ultimately what I was told by a skeptic (in 2008/9) turned out to be at best a gross error (and that seems to be a pattern when I look in depth at skeptic arguments, but it often takes time). Now taking this as an example should the GW article include a line saying that some people think that the satellite data doesn't show warming?--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:05, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * When a thread fails to articulate an article improvement idea I collapse it, whether it makes oblique ambiguous reference to so-called "warmist" information, "denialist" information, or something in between. When people, such as TS, then apologize and say exactly how the article should be changed in light of that information, I un-collapse it.  If that makes me an anti-sceptic-racist, that is more of a reflection on the offended party's lack of intellectual discipline and/or emotional maturity, and says nothing about wiki's accessability to their ideas.  All they have to do is spit out a coherent way they want to see the article be improved.  Simply re-stating talking points isn't going to cut it.


 * The racism analogy falls short. Society can create a multiculture reality of equals because blacks are equals and don't need to do anything but be themselves.  So I support anti-racism legislation (with a goal of making society color blind).  But we're not talking about inherent inalienable characteristics here, we're talking about ideas.  Some have a solid foundation and some do not.  Do you create a Guvernator physique by injecting Hostess Twinkies?  No, you work out and eat right.  In that example we're building muscle, but in wiki we're building an encyclopedia of ideas, hopefully with intellectual biceps to match the Guv's fleshy ones.  That ain't gonna happen by eating cognitive Hostess Twinkies, whether the creamy filling is from the warmist or denialist camp.  Ideas have to be presented in peer review and survive examination by others in the field.  Unless we want to bring back the Dark Ages, of course.  Not me.


 * As for satellite data, I think you said skeptics often say sat data shows no warming but they are basing on that on something that is wrong because sat data DOES show warming. Sounds like a splendid thing to work into Satellite_temperature_measurements but not the mainstream science overview article.... I mean, have you been [here]?  We can't include all the erroneous things skeptics say in a single article... and when they say an important thing that adds a missing piece to the puzzle, a lot of climate nerds will embrace it.


 * In sum, I think things are just fine on wiki except for the rampant lack of civility, and I think things are just fine in the world, so long as we oppose the assault on the scientific process. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:35, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * The world and wiki are both great but we still have to try to find where we can make changes for the better (and where to leave well alone).--IanOfNorwich (talk) 12:11, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Sounds like Prayer of St Francis Ian. PS, for clarity with the IP... my prior comment, where I said all needs to do is to articulate article improvement ideas?  I meant that's what's needed to avoid having the thread archived or collapsed.  Once an article improvement idea has been articulated, everyone (including me) gets to support/oppose/ignore/tweak it on the merits.  NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:25, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, specific article improvements are what's needed to avoid thread collapse but I fear the IP contributor would still, generally, end up disappointed if he made such suggestions the way things are. So either he or Wikipedia must change (in fact inevitably both, at least subtly).--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:10, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

PS I'm a actually a sockpuppet of St Francis - you've blown my cover.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 13:26, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

From the gist of what is being said, I take it you are just fine with the lack of NPOV on Wikipedia. People are not stupid, we all read stuff from politicians and everyone has their bullshit detector and can sense when they are not being told the truth. The best indicator that a source is trustworthy is that it covers all the issues in a none partisan way. What will trigger the bullshit detector is: No one needs a PhD in the subject to know when the wool is being pulled over them - and as every lecturer says to every group of students: "don't trust what you read on the internet". As they say, you can take a horse to water, but you can't force a Wikipedia editor to change their POV.
 * missing subjects (like the 21st century pause which everyone knows about)
 * Bias in wording: "global warming is happening".
 * The absence of information found in other sources
 * A skew in the coverage.

But don't worry, I'll be back, because I fully anticipate a need to totally rewrite the article by the end of next year!!! 88.104.194.119 (talk) 19:46, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * No not happy with any lack of NPOV, it's just we seem to disagree with how things look from a NPOV. The slow in the rate of warming in the 21st century might need a mention but I'm skeptical about the rest. There are people who believe that Queen Elisabeth II is a lizard - they have lots of arguments to back it up. Should there be an 'is she a lizard' section? I'm guessing you'd say no? Well, that's extreme compared to global warming skeptism but it's a question of how far down the scale the things you want to include are. I was hoping we might gain a shared POV (and we're all editing from a POV trying to find a NPOV) by discussing the details of Global Warming and working out how we have reached different conclusions.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:14, 31 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Ian, FYI, about the supposed slowing? First please ask yourself whether you risk your naked tender parts just plunging into the jacuzzi on the basis of how warm (or cool) the AIR is?  Yes sir, that unfortunate sort of experience has taught all of us that water is a far superior heat sink to air.  With that thought in mind, you may find these interesting: [] and [].   NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 21:45, 31 August 2011 (UTC)
 * Yes, water has a higher heat capacity and thermal conductivity, but there is an effect going on with air temp. My understanding was that radiative flux into the earth had decreased somewhat due to reduced solar activity and sulphates. (But I couldn't get that from the article.)--IanOfNorwich (talk) 09:34, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Here's another way to look at those factors

[]NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:50, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well yes, I'm not disagreeing with any of that but it's not me who's in need of convincing, is it? BTW I meant to say above the rate of change of radiative flux was reduced rather than the radiative flux.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 11:08, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Did I give that impression? I apologize!  You seem like a true skeptic, which in my vocabulary is high praise.  As my research/teaching professor of a hard science wife says "All scientists worth their salt are skeptics about everything for their entire careers."  'cheerio NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:30, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Ian, I've been looking into this Svensmark/CERN solar link, and I've totally changed my mind. I found there to be plenty of compelling evidence. This is no longer an academic dispute. As far as I can see this is actually a case of outright fraud by some editors on Wikipedia repressing good science for purely political (not scientific) reasons. This is not some victimless crime! I am sick to death of hearing the phrase "it is so difficult to get anything published" from decent academics whose only crime is to find evidence that contradicts the overwhelming political POV of these pages. And having seen the evidence yes I know what fraud is, and yes I do think people on Wikipedia have been criminally fraudulent and criminally denying the public the vast amount of evidence contradicting the totally unscientific assertions about CO2 (notably the unsubstantiated positive feedbacks). I want to have nothing to do with WIKIPEDIA. GOODBYE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.194.119 (talk) 13:10, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to hear that. I had hoped we could discus the detail of this topic and reached a shared understanding.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 14:24, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

Logic
Your suspicions noted [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Global_warming#CERN_first_results_on_Cosmic_Rays_enhancing_aerosol_formation. here] appear to be unfounded, may I suggest that it would be tactful if you could delete your comment? As an aside from looking over the above, satellite temperature measurements does indeed still have problems, as do the Spencer and Christy bios. I'll maybe try to fix the obvious in the main article, but some good third party sourcing is needed. This may be of interest, and I'm rather pleased to have found a reliable third party source but don't have time to edit much at present. Think you could incorporate this? . . dave souza, talk 17:20, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I'm not sure about Logic. Have you looked at his edit history? The checkuser seems to have shown that he's not on the same IP range as our old friend normally uses (he's been quite for a week) but he sure as hell looks like him. He's only edited about half a dozen articles. One local to California (his home). The style of edits is exactly the same. After about 12 edits over 2 months he turns up on the GW talk and makes the kind of comment you'd expect. But the thing that really convinces me is that when first created the account he used some auto page creation thing which he always seems/seemed to use to make his user blue-linked. Then strait after editing the GW talk he changed it. Another thing is he hasn't denied it or objected - I know I would if I wasn't a sock and was accused (and did once when JJ suggested I was!) but S doesn't ever seem to bother he just creates the next acc.
 * Thanks for the links - good stuff (though simply confirmation of the ruthless worldwide scientific cabal, of course). As soon as I have time to do it properly I'll march off to Dr. S's bio. I'll also try to improve the satellite temperature measurements further along with my neglected pet UAH satellite temperature dataset as time allows.....--IanOfNorwich (talk) 18:48, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Fair enough, did look over the edit history but it didn't seem like some of the earlier incarnations. I'm hopeless at sock spotting though some of his have been so blatant that even I've been right. I do know that some editors keep hints about how to spot him to themselves to avoid tipping him off, so must content myself with ignorance. On the other topic, Forbes has a piece (not a blog, unclear if it's an op/ed) which looks useful. . dave souza, talk 19:14, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm literally not sure what this means but it reassures me.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 20:03, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Hey
I think you are right that a pie chart would be better. I just think the graph with the 100 little people looks silly and distracts from the greater purpose of the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andy0093 (talk • contribs) 23:05, 4 September 2011 (UTC)


 * Since the pic you think is "silly" is well sourced and you're not quibbling with the factual statement it represents, I plan to put it back on all the pages, and I'll be perfectly happy to see a pie chart replace it when a pie chart is made by somebody (other than me). Meanwhile, Andy's stylistic opinion that use of people instead of pie is "silly" is not a reason to delete the relevant graphic, since its well sourced within wiki guidelines.  Make pie, Andy, don't delete please. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:49, 5 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Well I probably agree, more or less with both of you there. I watch the page so we can talk there.--IanOfNorwich (talk) 07:48, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 13:47, 23 November 2015 (UTC)