User talk:Sln3412

In general
I've tried to put here information, critiques, suggestions and babbling that don't belong anywhere but on my talk page. I need to clean it up, but mostly it's just stream of consciousness. Hopefully, if you are looking at this, you'll see I'm not a total idiot, but rather an unfocused one.

Note also I don't usually spell check or grammar check, but just write as I think about things....  Duh! :)

Fixed!

The Earth's temperature compared to local variation of 30-100 F
If you compare the mean temperature anomalies from the GHCN-ERSST data set from 1880-2005 and chart them on a scale as if you lived in a place where it was 30 degrees F in the Winter and 100 degrees F in the Summer, this is what global warming looks like to you:



Plotted on a 10 degree scale


High point .6 degrees C (4.3%) over average

Low point .73 degrees C (5.2%) under average

Trend rose .7 degrees C (5%) from 1880 to 2005

Highest and lowest temperatures for the period


I messed up and this is only the January figures, not the entire year. You get the idea I hope.

Given the fact that any month or year is about the same as any other, especially in light of the recent adjustment for 6 years of US data, no I probably won't get to it some day, nor do I need to, I don't think. But you can chart it here for yourself:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGts?dat=BLEND&SYST=TS&TS=6

Or you can just get the entire 1880 to 2006 Jan-Dec chart here:

http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/GCAGmsg?dat=BLEND&mon1=1&monb1=1&mone1=12&bye1=1880&eye1=2006&graph=Lineplot&mon2=0&eye2=0&bye2=0&mon3=0&ye=0&begX=0&begY=0&endX=71&endY=35&param=Temperature&non=0&klu=1&proce=80&puzo=0&nzi=99&ts=6&sbeX=-180.0&sbeY=90.0&senX=180.0&senY=-90.0

As you'll see, the global anomaly trend is .04 degrees centigrade (from absolute anomalies of -.4 C to +.5 C) over the period in question.

Make sure you know where the numbers are actually from, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration of the United States Department of Commerce, run by Vice Admiral Conrad C. Lautenbacher, Jr., U.S. Navy (Ret.) the Undersecretary of Commerce for Oceans and Atmosphere and NOAA Administrator.

This is the source: http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/gcag/gcagmerged.html

That page covers the merged land-sea record, and has links to the GHCN for land and ERSST for sea.

IPCC WGII Technical Summary 1.2 quoted
WGII of the IPCC Technical Summary: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability

''This summary was accepted but not approved in detail at the Sixth Session of IPCC Working Group II (Geneva, Switzerland • 13-16 February 2001). “Acceptance” of IPCC reports at a session of the Working Group or Panel signifies that the material has not been subject to line-by-line discussion and agreement, but nevertheless presents a comprehensive, objective, and balanced view of the subject matter.''
 * Disclaimer at start of Technical Summary

First paragraph of section 1.2


 * 1.2. What is Potentially at Stake?


 * Human activities—primarily burning of fossil fuels and changes in land cover—are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents or properties of the surface that absorb or scatter radiant energy. The WGI contribution to the TAR—Climate Change 2001: The Scientific Basis—found, “In the light of new evidence and taking into account the remaining uncertainties, most of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations.” Future changes in climate are expected to include additional warming, changes in precipitation patterns and amounts, sea-level rise, and changes in the frequency and intensity of some extreme events.


 * Oreskes: "Human activities ... are modifying the concentration of atmospheric constituents ... that absorb or scatter radiant energy. ... [M]ost of the observed warming over the last 50 years is likely to have been due to the increase in greenhouse gas concentrations" [p. 21 in (4)].


 * 4. J. J. McCarthy et al., Eds., Climate Change 2001: Impacts, Adaptation, and Vulnerability (Cambridge Univ. Press, Cambridge, 2001).

Oreskes Essay paraphrased by paragraph, no comments
If there’s a lack of disagreement (which later becomes “consensus”) by a (later defined) scientific community that humans influence climate change; that shows climate science is not highly uncertain.

Scientific consensus is shown by the reports of a intergovernmental entity know as the IPCC. Quotes some of WG II (Impact and Adaptation) technical summary 1.2 ‘What is potentially at stake?’ (edited) as being evidence of an unequivocal statement by the IPCC that there is consensus of scientific opinion that humans influence climate change.

An NAS report agrees. The report asks if the IPCC is correct in its summary about professional scientific thinking and the report answers yes.

The AMS, AGU and Science magazine’s AAAS have issued statements there is compelling evidence humans influence climate change.

These reports and statements are gone over a lot, so they probably reflect the views of the members (which would be the scientific community) of these organizations. But the organizations might quash dissenters. So to test that idea, we go look at some abstracts in the ISI database searched for with “climate change” and find 928.

75% either agreed or didn’t disagree that there was a lack of disagreement by the scientific community that humans influence climate change. 25% had no view on it, and none disagreed.

None of the papers argued climate change was natural.

We prove that published scientists agree with the statements of their groups. Some people incorrectly think that climate scientists don’t agree with each other.

The consensus might be wrong, we can’t blame anyone for not acting. But we understand humans change the climate so we should do something about it or we’ll look bad to our descendants.

We don’t understand all the details, and we should keep researching the dynamics of climate. What to do about climate change is not answered. But scientists don’t disagree humans change the climate. Climate scientists keep telling us that and we should listen.

Links
-Oreskes Essay

-IPCC Technical summary 1.2

-Peiser Letter

-Oreskes op-ed

-Realclimate blog about the consensus

-TCS Daily article on the essay and blog

-Lambert 34 Abstract Blog

-Norvig Blog

-Lambert Peiser Watch

-The Economics of Climate Change Volume I: Report

-Greenhouse

-Scientific_opinion_on_climate_change

-

-

-Get off the fence over global warming

-Goodbye oil, hello nuclear

-News & Comment

-Graphic

-Fallacy Files

-Falsifiability

-Falsification

Oreskes Essay, comments on certain points
Comments on the essay:


 * Some corporations whose revenues might be adversely affected by controls on carbon dioxide emissions have also alleged major uncertainties in the science.


 * Such statements suggest that there might be substantive disagreement in the scientific community about the reality of anthropogenic climate change. This is not the case.

The first suggests that because these corporations have a possible motive to disagree, their contributions are not to be believed, in their entirety, simply because they have an interest.

The second suggests that searching for "climate change" (as originally published) or "global climate change" (as later corrected) is the same as looking for support of "anthropogenic climate change". Then that is linked to the conclusion that there is no 'substantive disagreement' (which is what?) by the 'scientific community' (which is whom?) to 'anthropogenic climate change' (which correlates how?).


 * In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities...

That might be replaced by by the activities of plants and animals or by the influence of forests and oceans and volcanoes and so on, as is true about any system in this machine. This all ignores the fact that even some of the members of the IPCC do not totally agree with all the conclusions in total, as well as also making the claim that 'scientific opinion in general' is proven by what we've now found out by: Reviewing abstracts of published articles in the ISI database according to the section of science from the keywords global climate change. In addition, the assessment by the IPCC spoken of is not in the main body of the report, it is in the technical summary of Working Group II. Global climate change meaning what, exactly? The global climate is changing? Ah, yes. It indeed is.


 * Others agree. The American Meteorological Society (6), the American Geophysical Union (7), and the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) all have issued statements in recent years concluding that the evidence for human modification of climate is compelling (8).

Agreement does not constitute fact, no matter how prestigious (or not) those that are agreeing are. But to that statement; there is probably nobody who would not agree that the evidence for human "modification of" (impact on) on the climate is there. Any variable impacts the whole in some way. What exactly is the modification? This is very vague.


 * The drafting of such reports and statements involves many opportunities for comment, criticism, and revision, and it is not likely that they would diverge greatly from the opinions of the societies' members. Nevertheless, they might downplay legitimate dissenting opinions. That hypothesis was tested by analyzing 928 abstracts, published in refereed scientific journals between 1993 and 2003, and listed in the ISI database with the keywords "climate change" (9).

How exactly does reviewing those particular abstracts (or any abstracts) test if the reports and statements downplay anything? While it is probably true that "birds of a feather flock together" these three sentences are not "3 great things that go great together." At least you would think she'd get what she searched for correctly the three times in the essay they are used to apply to the search.


 * Remarkably, none of the papers disagreed with the consensus position.

Please spell out someplace exactly what “the consensus position” is so we can know what we're looking for disagreement with. As well as what you looked at exactly. Provide us with a list of the abstracts, how you graded them, and how you excluded them. Further, it would be nice if we could know how searching for either “global climate change” or “climate change” or whatever you really searched for (since we know you removed certain abstracts) are the same as a large majority agreement (or really, the lack of disagreement) on “anthropogenic climate change”. That's not what you searched for. Also, why the search was not further refined by only looking at those created by climatologists, that would be nice to know too.


 * Admittedly, authors evaluating impacts, developing methods, or studying paleoclimatic change might believe that current climate change is natural. However, none of these papers argued that point.

Nice of you to admit it. What does none of these papers arguing that point have anything to do with it, and why are these papers proof nobody reliable is arguing that point, even if it did have something to do with it?


 * This analysis shows that scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature agree with IPCC, the National Academy of Sciences, and the public statements of their professional societies. Politicians, economists, journalists, and others may have the impression of confusion, disagreement, or discord among climate scientists, but that impression is incorrect.

How does 'scientists publishing in the peer-reviewed literature (more correctly put, the abstracts you searched through in the ISI under science and global climate change)' become 'agreement with the IPCC, the NAS and their professional societies' become 'confusion disagreement or discord among climate scientists'?


 * The scientific consensus might, of course, be wrong. If the history of science teaches anything, it is humility, and no one can be faulted for failing to act on what is not known. But our grandchildren will surely blame us if they find that we understood the reality of anthropogenic climate change and failed to do anything about it.

Again, we have "scientific consensus". Where are we now again? And we are taught by science history to be humble, so if we don't do anything it's okay. But oh, my, let's not let our grandchildren down. Do we understand the reality of climate change, oh, excuse me, anthropogenic climate change, I mean, global climate change. Hey! Let's do something about it!


 * Many details about climate interactions are not well understood, and there are ample grounds for continued research to provide a better basis for understanding climate dynamics. The question of what to do about climate change is also still open. But there is a scientific consensus on the reality of anthropogenic climate change. Climate scientists have repeatedly tried to make this clear. It is time for the rest of us to listen.

Another impassioned plea.

We don't understand all the details. We should do more research to learn climate dynamics better. We don't know what to do about climate change. Climate scientists have kept trying to tell us it's clear there's a scientific consensus that there is anthropogenic climate change and it's time we listen!!!!!!

Thoughts on the Peiser debacle
Reading the blogs and associated topics again, and then rereading the Deltoid blog on the abstracts again, wrote the following.

The original study was not duplicated. This is a given from the evidence.

Dr. Peiser searched a wider subject range of abstracts, and seems more to be an exercise in researching policy rather than science. Which probably has lead to most of the discussion. He does not admit the study in the essay wasn't really duplicated after all, nor that the abstracts are rather iffy to prove anything regardless. Most of his comments in the blog hurt him rather than help him.

The 34 abstracts are probably too old on the average to matter anyway, and they in large are pretty non-specific either way. More interesting (but maybe too old on average to matter anyway, either) would be how many of the others not here are specific that human activity causes our observed temperature increase. Or in other words, if lack of clear dissent provides evidence of clear endorcement. Or asking if either the essay or Peiser's comments on it are scientific at all in the first place.

A lot of time is spent on debating Peiser's honesty or motives, not if a certain collection of abstracts was a representative sample or not, nor what would (does) constitute a representative sample under what criteria.

Dr. Oreskes in her essay originally 1) reported incorrect search terms, 2) did not provide which part of the database she searched, and 3) did not give the criteria by which she judged an abstract not to be included. By and large, Peiser is attacked for using the wrong terms at first, or later for not knowing these points and/or not asking about them, when attempting to recreate.

At times questions of what a representative sample is, if the consensus (or not) proves (or doesn't) anything and similar subjects are mentioned, but not delved into in a major way, if at all.

New points made or new questions asked are usually ignored, where the details already discussed are gone back into instead.

A lot of the blog discussion seems to revolve around logical fallacy, constantly using various forms of argument by consensus, argument from authority, appeal to consequences, false dilemma, begging the question, non causa pro causa, faulty analogy, guilt by association and other red herrings, fallacy of propositional logic, fake precision, ad hominem...


 * This is perhaps evidenced in various posts (paraphrased, incomplete and in somewhat a thread recreation rather than as a chronology):


 * coop takes "greenhouse gasses acting as amplifiers" and turns it into "human-emitted greenhouse gases" acting as amplifiers in response to comments by Peiser and Eli Rabbit, after Peiser quotes a Geoscience Canada journal piece by Jan Veizer. Eli has some comments on the quote.  Comments on the Veizer bit spread over the 3 pages off and on.


 * Tall Dave remarks to Eli that Eli's claim of FUD by the denialists is what the alarmists are doing. Eli answers back that's what Tall is doing is FUD. Yelling says to Tall the denialists are saying 'be afraid' about Kyoto, Tall answers it's 'be sensible' about it. BobWi compares spending money on gobal warming is the same as spending money on invading Iraq.  Tall again says take it a bit easy, too much FUD going on. etc  Later on, Tall answers BobWi that his analogy is flawed and tells him he's not being realistic


 * In reference to Tall saying more study needs to be done on AGW, Dano as a point makes an odd analogy about the effect of gun ownership on crime. Tall makes as a counter-point an odd anology back about Hitler being against freedom because he advocated for gun control. Disputo comments on Godwin's Law.  etc


 * From the FUD discussion above, a new thread. Eli tells Tall to listen to Jeffrey Harvey about some of the points discussed.  Jeff writes in that Tall is making conservative US imperial rants, discusses some matters of ecology, and tells Tall he's out of his depth and delusional.  Tall answers Eli that being an expert doesn't make one predictive nor having of good judgement.  Tall answers Jeff that being an expert doesn't make everything he says correct by mocking the logic of why Jeff should be listened to.


 * New line of thought. Tim Lambert tells Tall the argument is hurting him and that he should ask for ecosystem references.  Tall answers Tim that the burden of proof is on those making the claim that spending the money is justified, and that there's been a lot of good work done but more needs to be done, suggests nuclear power and alternative energy research.  Eli says the sea levels will rise and cost a lot of money.  Tall answers back how much will they rise?  Discussion starts to flake out, going towards sun shields, age of reports, FUD from both sides, horticulture and CO2, satire, etc


 * Blog goes back to Peiser/Oreskes discussions, it appears there's more of the old stuff to talk about again, as storys written by Peiser have been published still claiming to recreate the essay, but nobody's sure of when they were written vs published.  Peiser has taken to emails and interviews rather than a blog.


 * One interview, reported out of the main thread, Peiser mentions "I accept that it was a mistake to include the abstract you mentioned (and some other rather ambiguous ones) in my critique of the Oreskes essay." and "It certainly deflected attention from my main criticism, i.e. that her claim of a unanimous consensus on AGW (as opposed to a majority consensus) is tenuous." Of course, she never claimed there was unanimous consensus.  In fact, if you read her essay, it is mostly an opinion piece, but makes a lot of very good points.  Others aren't so good.  The essay does not seem "scientific" overall.  The idea that something is unanimous consensus probably comes from the essay saying: "In its most recent assessment, IPCC states unequivocally that the consensus of scientific opinion is that Earth's climate is being affected by human activities."


 * Off again. z goes back to pick out two of Tall's claims, out of context, to show that Tall's rhetoric exhibit asymmetric logic (fallacy).  Dano agrees with z and says that this seems a common political-style yes.


 * Dr. Johnson contrasts the millions of years of ice cores against the couple hundred documented, and claims that Oreskes should have done more study into the long-term data and not concentrate so much on the short. coop compares the time frames, suggesting J doesn't know the difference.  J clarifies recent observations aren't as good as long term.  Dano says data from long ago isn't important to the current problem.  Bob says J is using a strawman argument.  J says you can't show today is anything out of the ordinary if you compare it to the long-term, that long term variations drown out the short term.  coop says modern data is a high rate-change and that as living beings we don't have time to wait.  Bob says J is contradicting himself, and then Bob uses an example which shows no contradiction (long term doesn't show show term and we're making a big deal about it).  Dano complains about writing style, references, and says the planet was too different back then.  J says "I'm outta here" in a fancy but belitting wayway.  CEK tells J this ain't no place for science.  Dano calls J a hack and says go away more quietly next time.  z remarks that J's goodbye was funny.  Then z complains about J's grammer and spelling, as well as method of speaking, in a style somewhat like it, even pedantic perhaps.


 * Further things are discussed in the more interesting "Peiser watch" post. http://timlambert.org/2005/05/peiser2/

The point of all this is one thing; if we're going to have a discussion about something, we shouldn't be mixing what we're talking about. We've mixed in discussions of viewpoints, discussions of character, discussions of consensus, discussions of science, discussions of logic, discusssions of publications, discussions of studies, discussions of methodology, discussions on statistics, discussions on climate, discussions on politics, discussions on policy, discussions on economics, and more. Then we act like we're talking about the same thing, and we are not.


 * For example, I read an explanation of how we know the CO2 in the atmosphere is ours. Well, of course it's ours.  That's not the question.  The question is why is the Earth holding onto it in the quantity it's holding onto.  That's it.  Or you can ask if CO2 levels causes warming.   Or you can ask if the amount of warming is excessive.  You can't ask those all at once.  Especially if you then add another 20 questions in.  You can't.


 * What does the methods and movtivations of The Sierra Club versus those of The Cato Institute have to do with a discussion of the water vapor levels in the atmosphere affecting clouds?  What does the merits of Oreskes' sample vs Peiser's sample have to do with the temperature change in Alabama since 1900?  Or even the conclusions of the samples with each other?  What does that some groups think the Earth is flat have to do with experiments to measure the effects of burning methane?  What does a study into tree rings have to do with a study of average glacier thickness in the arctic?

To bring up again an idea that TallDave brought up that was rather mixing too many (or not enough) things into 3 AND statements. There's actually a lot of things that need to be thought about:


 * That Global Warming is real: It is.  The observed rise in the Earth's average temperature is real.


 * That the rise in Earth's average temperature is "too much" and has to have something done about it:


 * What constitutes "too much":


 * What can be done about it:


 * If average temperature is a good indicator if there's a problem or not:


 * That humans are producing CO2: Yes, x number of tons per year, x number of tons over y years.


 * That the level of CO2 produced is excessive:


 * That the level of CO2 in the atmosphere has risen: Yes, x amount ppmv (or x percentage) per year, x amount ppmv (or x percentage) over y years.


 * That atmospheric CO2 levels is an important indicator:


 * What constitutes an important indicator:


 * What else is that that is an important indicator:


 * That important indicator a's levels have risen excessivly:


 * That important indicator b's levels have risen excessivly:


 * That there is a demonstrated consistent (positive or negative) provable correlation between indicator a and b:


 * What are the other important indicators:


 * Are there more relationships between x number of important indicators into a matrix:


 * Can we isolate variables to prove direct cause/effect relationships:


 * Are there cost/benefit ratios between action x and result y:

So, taking one mix of these questions and such:


 * Is the Earth's warming excessive AND is the creation of CO2 excessive AND is the rise of CO2 in the atmosphere excessive AND (is there a correlation between creating CO2 AND rising atmospheric levels of CO2 AND if so to what degree) AND (is there a correlation between that AND rising temperatures) AND would reducing CO2 creation result in a change AND is it worth the cost.

One could probably put together the same question for Methane levels, or another set of questions for the burning of methane resulting in twice as much water as carbon dioxide, or some other set of questions for the interactions of elements w, x, y and z interacting with each other, ad nausem, ad infinitum.

MIT
Massachusetts Institute of Technology Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meterology

Not that the school or the title or the branch of science means anything or not. Or that anyone would ever just draw conclusions or biases without reading it first, just because it's on the Cato website.

But if anyone would like to look at a Lindzen dealy, Global Warming: The Origin and Nature of the Alleged Scientific Consensus and rip it up or compare it to the other essay, feel free.

Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae
I have added a "" template to the article Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae, suggesting that it be deleted according to the proposed deletion process. All contributions are appreciated, but I don't believe it satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion, and I've explained why in the deletion notice (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and Wikipedia's deletion policy). Please either work to improve the article if the topic is worthy of inclusion in Wikipedia, or, if you disagree with the notice, discuss the issues at its talk page. Removing the deletion notice will prevent deletion through the proposed deletion process, but the article may still be sent to Articles for Deletion, where it may be deleted if consensus to delete is reached, or if it matches any of the speedy deletion criteria. Awyong Jeffrey Mordecai Salleh 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae
I've nominated Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae, an article you created, for deletion. We appreciate your contributions, but in this particular case I do not feel that Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae satisfies Wikipedia's criteria for inclusion; I have explained why in the nomination space (see also "What Wikipedia is not" and the Wikipedia deletion policy). Your opinions on the matter are welcome; please participate in the discussion by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae and please be sure to sign your comments with four tildes ( ~ ). You are free to edit the content of Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae during the discussion but should not remove the articles for deletion template from the top of the article; such removal will not end the deletion discussion. Thank you. Awyong J. M. Salleh 14:35, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Hunh?
Two posts in one day about the same thing? Then a 5 day delete? For that? Thanks everyone for giving me enough time to comment.... :) And then the page was closed so I couldn't. :(  So. Although I do see the thoughts of the worth of it were almost universally against it. Oh well.

Here's the article:

Ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae This is the Vulgate phrase that Jesus says to the scribes and Pharisees in John 8:12 (Iohannes VIII:XII) after His actions stop the stoning of the "woman taken in adultery" (John 8:3)

Literal translations of the phrase include "i am light world who follow me not walk in darkness but keep light mode of life" or "i exist daylight mankind who accompany myself by no means travels on ignorance however manages daylight career"

English bible versions translate it thusly:

I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life. (King James)

'''I am the light of the world. If you follow me, you won't be stumbling through the darkness, because you will have the light that leads to life.''' (New Living Translation)

The phonetic Greek is ego eimi phos kosmos akoloutheo emoi peripateo ou me peripateo en skotia alla echo phos zoe 

The full text of the Stutgart Vulgate verse is iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens ego sum lux mundi qui sequitur me non ambulabit in tenebris sed habebit lucem vitae. The Clemintine Vulgate verse is the same but uses the word "lumen" instead of "lucem". The official Roman Catholic Church version is Iterum ergo locutus est eis Iesus dicens: " Ego sum lux mundi; qui sequitur me, non ambulabit in tenebris, sed habebit lucem vitae." which is in Ecclesiastical Latin and includes modern punctuation.

See also (from Wikisource)
 * New Testament, Stuttgart Vulgate

External links
 * The Clementine Vulgate, searchable - 2005 Edition. Michael Tweedale, et alia.
 * The Bible in Latin - official text of the Roman Catholic Church
 * Blue Letter Bible Lexicon/Concordance of the verse

A study on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies
Hi. I would like to ask whether you would agree to participate in a short survey on how to cover scientific uncertainties/controversies in articles pertaining to global warming and climate change. If interested, please get in touch via my talkpage or email me Encyclopaedia21 (talk) 18:58, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

AfD nomination of Solar greenhouse
An article that you have been involved in editing, Solar greenhouse, has been listed for deletion. If you are interested in the deletion discussion, please participate by adding your comments at Articles for deletion/. Thank you.Please contact me if you're unsure why you received this message. Dmcq (talk) 01:01, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Homophobia
A couple of things. First of all, the word homophobia is not composed of "homo-" and "phobia", and does not mean "fear of the same". That is a classic etymological error, as it assumes that the meaning of the whole can be deduced from the sum of its parts. The term "homophobia" is composed of "homo(sexual)" and "phobia", and means "aversion to homosexuals/homosexuality". This is already explained in the etymology section of the article, and in the sources you listed.

Second of all, "phobos" originally meant "running away from something, [] and meant specifically a particular type of "fear", a reaction that is usually visceral, automatic, reflexive, irrational and makes one want to run away from or avoid something, akin to repulsion or dislike. The English word "fear" has a much broader meaning than "phobos", and that's why a lot of people misunderstand the term. Greek had other words to cover the other meanings of the word "fear", like "deimos", which meant "dread, sheer terror", a different kind of fear than "phobos".

Third of all, etymology is too tangential for the lede of the article.

Fourth of all, the meaning of "homophobia" given in our article is practically universally agreed upon. Those that object to it do so primarily for political reasons that have nothing to do with the etymology of the word. The third source you listed, [], is a good example, when it states "It is hard to imagine people being scared of homosexuals", which is pure blither.

Some English "phobias" have nothing to do with fear, nor anything to do with the clinical anxiety-related phobias at all, such as "photophobia" in cockroaches or "photophobia" in humans. The old name for rabies was "hyrophophobia", which also had nothing to do with fear. "Hydrophobia" is also used in chemistry to describe substances that have a metaphorical "aversion" to water. Again, the idea of "fear" is not in play here. So a lot of the etymological fallacies about "homophobia" are based on the erroneous proposition that "phobos" = "fear", which is a semantic error, and that all "phobias" are clinical in nature, which is a categorical error. Dominus Vobisdu (talk) 20:42, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * True, tangential. True, it's easily discernible in the article where the component words are from, because the article tells us already.  So, perhaps it's superfluous having it directly stated in the entry as well, depending on the desired tone of the article.  After all, it's a social term far extended beyond its original meaning.   True, in this case the meaning of homo is shorthand for homosexual  homosexuality &c.  Yet it's also true the definitions stem from putting together homo (as pointed out repeatedly by all involved, in the way it's used in homosexual) and phobia.  Not like ailurophobia, coulrophobia, hoplophobia or glossophobia exactly any more than they're exactly the same; although they're closer to meaning what they say than homophobia is; but we're not denying that.   We quite agree it is.


 * Yes of course both homo and phobia are not being used anywhere near their literal sense currently.  They still have a literal sense.  Plus when the term was coined, those meanings were far closer than they are now.    After all, the term is from a time when the AMA defined homosexuality as a mental disorder, which the origins of the term and the reason behind its creation reflect.   1969, "heterosexual men's fear that others might think they are gay."  1971, "psychological aversion to homosexuality".    So what's untrue is that the phobos phobia fear in the neologism is erroneous, a semantic error or required to be clinical.    It obviously and factually started out as being fairly close to it, which is fine for a term that was made up for a specific use in a specific context under a particular set of circumstances.   No use denying that.  No use denying it's changed either.   Pointing out the literal source (even as clumsily I did it) doesn't change what the term means currently,


 * Originally then.  Literally "sameness" (as in sameness of sex in this case) but in use "non-heterosexual".   Literally "irrational fear" but  in use "general fear and fear-like feelings" and "psychological aversion".   Why we would be arguing about how the invented term was constructed, I don't know.  It's an invented term, the people that shaped it as it began could use whichever forms and meanings of the source words as they'd like.   There's no argument that we know where it comes from and what the coiners meant by it.   But that is the point of a literal meaning; current usage can and does change.   Now today it's not "fear" or only in the psychological realm, but "a range of negative attitudes and feelings"  and not just in a narrow sense of self in relation to others, but "towards homosexuality or people who are identified as or perceived as being homosexual."   We could also add "calling inanimate objects homosexual (slang or otherwise)" and "other homosexuals and homosexual actions and behaviors considered overly homosexual or incorrectly homosexual."   A homosexual saying "That movie was just too gay." or "He's such a huge queen, excessive as far as I'm concerned." is homophobic under this definition as well.   It's not just fear or anxiety or dislike, it now also covers "antipathy, contempt, prejudice, aversion, and irrational fear" dissatisfaction, hatred, annoyance, and "critical and hostile behavior such as discrimination and violence on the basis of a non-heterosexual orientation."    And regardless of all  of that, homophobia is still derived from "same (sex) irrational fear".    And we both agree it means nothing at all anything like that now.  It's what the sources  literally mean; but quite obviously and admittedly isn't what the term means.    We might imagine however, that many people still parse it according to and get the impression of the source, but that's another subject and another argument.  What this is NOT is a claim by me that homophobia does or has to mean fear of sameness because homo- is always same and phobia is always fear.  It doesn't and it's not.


 * Will the meaning in practice swing back around to something more like the literal as it originally did, stay essentially the same as it is now, or be replaced by a more descriptive and more neutral phrase that better describes the subject?   Because right now, it's clearly not  anything so specific and narrow as a fear of the same sex sexually as pertains to sexuality and social interaction, as "homophobia" might linguistically suggest in some common perceived context.   So no, "homophobia" isn't a fear of or aversion to same sex interaction, of course not.  It's grown to more be anything that's not "sufficiently pro-homosexual" or however one might phrase that.  The term pretty much covers any thought, action, behavior or words suggesting anything other than fully supporting the total and complete inclusion of any and every type of homosexuality into any and all social {business government religious economic political} situations.    Which is fine, but it's not calling it what it is or doing so in a very positive manner.    We might say it's been co-opted as an inherently meaningless wiggle word that to many suggests one thing but in practice means quite very much another.   But how it has morphed, or why we have to waste time even caring about anyone's sexual orientation, those are different issues entirely as well.


 * Regardless of the fact the word is now used (if you wish, politically, yes) as more than the sum of its literal components, it is derived from homo and phobia. Period, end of story.    It is a term invented in 1969 to mean to connote a fear of same sex, a psychological matter of being perceived as being gay when that's not the case.  That's far too dry and unemotional and plain and unexciting though, isn't it.    Now it's more like a way to point out any "not fully LGBT supportive" behaviors of others as being a mental disorder in and of itself, as a "political word" to attack others in a derogatory slanted emotional manner.   "You're a woman who'd rather not shower in a room full of AG?  You intolerant scumbag homophobe!"   It's much like how "assault weapon" and "global warming" and the like are used to evoke a feeling far in addition to what the words/terms/phrases themselves might suggest.  But that takes us far far too deeply into the emotional political realm where logical rational discussion can't exist.  We might as well be discussing religion and abortion and gun control and human rights and income disparity.


 * You bring up that some other "phobias" that aren't, such as photophobia.   That article starts  "(from Greek φῶς - phōs, "light"[1] and φόβος - phobos, "fear"[2]) is a symptom of abnormal intolerance to visual perception of light"   So why would homo and phobia be an etymological fallacy then, or is that one too?  (Aside from the fact we're talking about the literal source and not claiming anything there about the present meaning of the derived term anyway; and certainly not one based only on its etymology alone.)    Yes, "abnormal intolerance" isn't "irrational fear" but it might be closer than "contempt and prejudice" is.  Besides that, photophobia would be more in the realm of chemical or biological phobia anyway, and in the medical sense it is;  "hypersensitivity to a stimulus".   Which as you also generally or specifically pointed out those chemical and biological and medical and other meanings of phobia; yet they're all literally fear, they're from the same source with more specific contextual meanings including or beyond fear or the equivalent.      So comparing social terms to chemical, biological or medical ones is not really much of a direct comparison.   Although if we go by the definition of homophobia as being "fear of homosexuals or of homosexual relationships" in the more narrow sense it fits a lot better.  Although as we've agreed, the term now is far broader than just that.  Now.   19:33, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

ArbCom elections are now open!
MediaWiki message delivery (talk) 16:05, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of File:Oh my.jpg


The file File:Oh my.jpg has been proposed for deletion. The proposed deletion notice added to the file should explain why.

While all constructive contributions to Wikipedia are appreciated, pages 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 file's talk page.

Please consider addressing the issues raised. Removing will stop the proposed deletion process, but other deletion processes exist. In particular, the speedy deletion process can result in deletion without discussion, and files for discussion allows discussion to reach consensus for deletion.

''' This bot DID NOT nominate any of your contributions for deletion; please refer to the history of each individual page for details. ''' Thanks, FastilyBot (talk) 10:03, 12 January 2024 (UTC)