User talk:Peterrhyslewis

Welcome!

Hello,, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions. I hope you like the place and decide to stay. Here are some pages that you might find helpful: I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes ( ~ ); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you need help, check out Questions, ask me on my talk page, or place  on your talk page and ask your question there. Again, welcome! --Guinnog 18:21, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * The five pillars of Wikipedia
 * How to edit a page
 * Help pages
 * Tutorial
 * How to write a great article
 * Manual of Style

Hi there! I have been contributing for some time under different variants of my name because I keep losing my password and name and have to reregister. I have contributed to about 58 articles including many entirely new ones (especially railway and colliery disasters, such as the Tay rail bridge and Hartley Collery disaster). Peterrhyslewis 23:04, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Global Warming Crticism
You have just deleted my recent contribution without any rational basis for your deletion. Have you not heard about the abuse of eugenics, and the way the ideas were taken up by Adolf Hitler? You seem to be quite unaware of the importance of criticism. It sems to me that Wikipedia should attempt to present all sides of an argument Peterrhyslewis 08:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I am quite familiar with eugenics programs, I am at a loss as to how it relates to global warming. The basis for removal of the paragraph was that it was misleading.  In particular, the first part of the paragraph had examples for which there was no rational relationship with the topic of the article.  They lacked any notable proponent with regard to global warming.  The last five sentences of the selection might well be their own paragraph; they are disjointed from the first part of the paragraph.  The sentences, however, state as fact what is an opinion, and one held primarily by political partisans rather than scientists.  This opinion, however, id presented as fact.  At least one of the sentences--" In particular, current global warming ideas are based on computer models, rather than sound physical principles."--is simply incorrect.  Climate models are preciely models of physical principles, see Global climate model.  The sentence which follows it, I at least can not discern any meaning at all.  I read it as an attempt to insert a specific point of view into the article which is neither presented as, nor (in large part) representative of, notable criticism of global warming.  I removed it on this basis.  Feel free to bring it to the talk page if you would like.  Thanks, --TeaDrinker 20:55, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Reply to Global Warming Critique
If you know about eugenics, then you should know that it was scentific consensus that supported the theory. My point is that science is not run by consensus, but by critical experimentation and a sceptical attitude to "consensus", especially when that consensus has politiical overtones. The global warming theory is said to be supported by a "consensus" of climate scentists. So what. It is in fact supported by computer models of doubtful validity. Weather forecasters use similar models which frequently fail to predict the weather a few hours hence. Wiki should not be taking a political stance, but should try to achieve some kind of balance, giving both anti and pro views on a particular topic. I have seen many failures of other computer models in engineering, which suggest that many such programmes have in-built faults and defects which bias the results they produce. Far from being an objectve assessment of the the various models, the current Wiki articles  are both far too dense, and much too naive in an area where the proponents of the theory are proposing drastic changes to energy policies and lfestyles. The computer models are not based on sound principles because they ignore the complexity of water vapour and aerosol effects on both heat retention and sunlight reflection.

As a physical scientist, I can see the absorption of water vapour very clearly in an FTIR spectrum on my lab bench, much greater than CO2 absorption for example.

Talk:List of scientists opposing global warming consensus
Please don't restore personal attacks at Talk:List of scientists opposing global warming consensus William M. Connolley 11:48, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I note that you continually attack individuals by name. So you can't accept that others mght make similar attacks on yourself?? Peterrhyslewis 16:47, 6 February 2007 (UTC)


 * Show me any edit where William calls someone "a clown" or "insane" or something substantially similar... --Stephan Schulz 16:53, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Peterrhyslewis, I read your comments on the talk page of global warming and I came here to agree with you. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia which includes many different slants on the same subject and the only question which is of concern is whether the reader would want to have information on the topic. Please be tolerant of people like William, I know they can be extremely infuriating so try to avoid getting into a fight - just stick to the question of whether their is sufficient authority not the rights or wrongs of your view. Bad behaviour by anyone just attracts more bad behaviour and drives away those with a real interest in improving wikipedia. Mike 11:21, 21 February 2007 (UTC)