Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/William M. Connolley

Larry Sangers definition of neutrality
Ed Poor referenced this in his comment. I'll include it here for completeness:


 * Neutrality is all about presenting competing versions of what the facts are. It doesn't matter at all how convinced you are that your facts are the facts. If a significant number of other interested parties disagrees with you, the neutrality policy dictates that the discussion be recast as a fair presentation of the dispute between the parties. --Larry Sanger

The fact that it is where it is (off Ed's talk page) makes it clear that this isn't wiki policy, its something Ed likes, and uses for personal guidance. Ed and I have disagreed on this before. I think that following this defn would end up with pages that look like ferrets fighting in a sack. It may be the best way for politics, it isn't for science. Using this defn on the global warming etc pages would leave it a mess of fighting viewpoints, which is exactly what the skeptics want: for it to look like there is no consenus.

In science, neutrality is presenting the truth, or what the vast majority of scientific opinion (as measured by published papers) believes to be the truth. Opposing views should be presented, but with lower prominence. (William M. Connolley 21:55, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC))


 * unsigned one (WMC?) I guess I disagree with Sanger's statement even more than you, frankly in science, it isn't either a "significant number" or a "vast majority" that matters, even one peer reviewed paper that does not fit within a theory creates problems for that theory. Neutrality, would be not just presenting the dominant, but also what data the theory does seem to explain yet, what the competing theories and their evidence and predictions are and what experiments or data might differentiate between them.  No matter how cold fusion papers have been published, one paper by a nuclear physicist reporting the lack of fusion products in an apparattus that is supposed to be working, creates problems.  It isn't a head count, a little conflicting data can outweigh a tremendous about of confirming data.  It depends.--Silverback 21:40, 20 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The cold fusion hypothetical example is pretty horrible, since in the real world the situation is precisely the opposite: there were some initial, promising tests, and after that, bupkis. In the real world, experiment after experiment has shown nothing, and the only papers published are in crank journals. In the real world, those initial promising results trumpeted by Fleischmann and Pons are understood to be anomalies by the vast majority of physicists. In the real world, since science is conducted by people and not machines, people subject to mistakes, confabulation, fraud, willful blindness, bribery, and misinterpretation -- well, anomalous results aren't quite the theory-killer you make them out to be. --Calton 14:38, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * The calorimetry used was of the best quality techniques that had survived peer review and been refined and published for decades, it suddenly came under question when it showed net energy generation and subtle flaws and complexities were looked for and found that hadn't mattered or so it seemed in a whole body of earlier work. --Silverback 15:02, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * It's precisely because a little conflicting data can outweigh a tremendous amount of confirming data that science articles with majority/minority opinions should not just report the one view. Those articles should aim to present the information more than the views, and that includes the information that supports the majority and the minority views, because frankly, all of that information is involved in the sum total of scientific knowledge about a topic.  The most important part of the Sanger principle is the part where he says that no matter how convinced you are that you're right, you don't force that exclusive view when there are other interpretations existing.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 05:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * And for the record, official Wikipedia NPOV policy clearly states that Wikipedia does NOT take a "scientific POV", it takes a "neutral POV", and that the two are not equal.  We do not edit articles here to simply represent the consensus view, as that is clearly against Wikipedia policy.  We edit articles to, and I will quote, "represent the majority ... view as the majority view and the minority ... view as the minority view", when dealing with controversial topics.  And when dealing with observations, information, evidence, or ideas, it's even easier, because those we can simply describe without selectively excluding the ones which disagree with our personal POV.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 05:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I would much prefer if these environmental articles could focus more on describing the scientific evidence and information relating to their topics in a fair and impartial manner, rather than trying to draw conclusions and push perspectives in every paragraph.    &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 05:57, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What is the "Sanger" principle? --Silverback 04:03, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * *points to the top of this section*    &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 13:01, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Sunray section discussion
"Cortonin’s insertion of “due to gasses” into the sentence changes a purely descriptive statement about the greenhouse effect into something quite different. His addition of the paragraph on cloud effects renders the article (which is, after all, on Greenhouse gases), laughable" --Sunray


 * You may find it "laughable", but the sentence clearly says "greenhouse effect". And clouds ARE a significant component of the greenhouse effect, which you will see if you look it up in other sources.  They may not be a gas, but the article makes the subtle transition from describing greenhouse gases to describing their contributions to the total greenhouse effect, but it only considers the greenhouse contributions due to gases in that total, and if it's going to do that, it should state such.  Otherwise it is inaccurate, hence my modification.  Removing it, while refusing to call it "greenhouse effect due to gases", serves no purpose except to artificially (and incorrectly) inflate the contribution of CO2 to the "total" greenhouse effect by ignoring contributions of clouds.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 05:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * To pursue this you would need to sumarize the science on which your contentions are based and clearly indicate the assumptions on which the different value was based. WMC has done that for his numbers. You have not.  Sunray 17:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * First, the 60-70% is the cloudless case, and the only source presented for those numbers states that it's the cloudless case, so its mention needs to be marked as such. The only excuse for reverting attempts to mark it as such would be if someone could document it as holding in the cloud case as well (which no one has).  As for the cloud case, here you go, read the corresponding class notes:  .  Clouds alone contribute 20% of the greenhouse effect.  Their net effect to the temperature is negative, and stronger than CO2 forcing.  In addition, the particular dynamics of low versus high clouds is very complicated and a major source of uncertainty in climate modelling.  I wish you luck trying to get mention of such calculations into the articles.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) 60-70 for cloudless... where does that come from?


 * "For the cloudless case, IPCC 1990, p 47-48 estimate water vapour at 60-70%" --Greenhouse effect, as was pointed to in the discussion on that topic.    &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 21:36, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 19:26, 22 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Aha, thanks, I should have remembered that as I added it. I'll have another check of the text sometime.

"WMC refers to him as “just some bod,” but clearly he is a bod with a political axe to grind. Now there is nothing whatsoever wrong with having a website to put forward a political POV. However, should Wikipedia reproduce a political POV in a scientific article?" --Sunray


 * I don't think ad hominems are a particularly productive way of editing Wikipedia articles. We should not go around deleting references to information anytime someone works for a political organization.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 05:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * My observation that the website author has a political point of view is not an ad hominem. Sunray 17:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * But using it as a reason in an argument for exclusion is. &mdash; Ben 23:25, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"Hieb provides five citations for his assertion that the contribution of water vapor to the greenhouse effect is 95%, not 60-70% as WMC has written. ... A book review of the book Hot Talk, Cold Science: Global Warming’s Unfinished Debate, by S. Fred Singer, Ph.D. that gives the 95% figure." --Sunray


 * And sadly, a value documented in Dr. Singer's book was repeatedly erased from the article. Is Dr. Singer also "some bod"?  Read his background:  .  Whatever you may think of his analysis, he's clearly far too qualified to go around systematically erasing the values he quotes from the related Wikipedia articles.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 05:43, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I have nothing to say against Singer. Again, if you want to use this, you need to sumarize Singer's research, clearly stating his assumptions.  Otherwise no one can check it.  Sunray 17:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Oh, I've got lots to say about Singer. He's a noted skeptic. A book review seems a rather dubious source for a value.

"This is a definition. It answers the question “what is global warming? Scientifically speaking, global warming is not a theory. It is an observable phenomenon. Over the centuries, global temperature has increased and decreased. Global warming is simply an increase in temperature. There are theories about causes of global warming. WMC knows this and has tried to explain it. Some folks may find it difficult to understand the nuances but it is pretty basic science." --Sunray


 * Really? Then please explain to me why WMC keeps  reverting  the global cooling article back to "global cooling is (or perhaps more appropriately was) a concern that the Earth may be ending its current warm period".  Why is "global cooling" defined as a "concern", and "global warming" defined as an "increase"?  Either one is a warming and one is a cooling, or they're both theories.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 06:27, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Yes, really. Instead of reacting negatively to what I've said, why don't you try to understand it?  It might help your future edits.  You seem to be intelligent and I'm am optimistic that people can learn. Sunray 17:31, 2005 Jan 21 (UTC)
 * Then can I get you to voice an opinion? Which is it?  Is global cooling a decrease and global warming an increase, or are global cooling and global warming both theories?  It's not about negative or positive, it's about consistency.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 19:12, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * (William M. Connolley 20:50, 21 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I think this is a fair point. As I'm sure you've noticed, I've stopped reverting it because I agree. This is because... well, read the GC page (in a few mins; I'm about to update it).

Example 6 I think the problem here is the use of "Global warming" in that sentence. I'm sure Corontin would be happy with "Global warming is a term used to describe an increase over time of the average temperature of Earth's atmosphere and oceans." Yet, apparently for personal POV reasons, WMC refuses to acknowledge this standard, easier, and more scientific use of the term and must not realize that stating that "Global warming is an increase..." in the sense it used on the page will always lead to conflict. &mdash;Ben 22:19, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, what evidence do you have that these are "personal POV reasons"? Perhaps there is a way the term is used and you should not assume the freedom to redefine it, but instead capture its actual use in this science.--Silverback 10:49, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * Definition of global warming: source 1, source 2, source 3, source 4. And straight from WMC: "(William M. Connolley 22:59, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)) The glossary page would be a good page for defining terms with multiple meanings. You will discover that GW is used by different people in different ways." "(William M. Connolley 12:50, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)) ...In the case of GW, what everyone (in the non-scientific domain) uses it to mean is the-current-warming-caused-by-people. In the scientific domain people don't use it that way, because it implies the answer..." &mdash; source &mdash; Ben 05:36, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * You are correct that I would find that an acceptable NPOV definition. I think such a definition is more accurate and would avoid future POV conflicts over the definition as well, by simply stating in a neutral and factual fashion.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 10:31, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)

"All climate models"
''Last post: I have no response to this. &mdash;Ben 21:44, 26 Jan 2005 (UTC)''

continue discussion here...

It's very simple, folks. "All climate models" has nothing to do with what models are published, or with what models are known to the Wiki editors. In fact, making a sweeping generality based on what is known is a particularly bad way to do anything. If I have only ever seen corn grow in fields, I could try to write, "All corn is grown in fields", and I would be correctly arguing from my experience of having seen corn grow. All that needs to be done for that to be wrong is for someone to grow one corn plant in a pot and say, "See, now it's not true." There's absolutely no reason to go out of our way to set ourselves up for being wrong from a single counterexample. Any statement which is wrong by the existence or creation of a single counterexample is much much weaker. It astonishes me that all of the passionate global warming supporters that we have here are so adamantly trying to make the arguments in favor of global warming look so much weaker by expressing them in the form of caution-inspiring sweeping generalities. All you have to do is take the word "All" off and make it "Climate models", and all of the sudden the entire debate is over, the statement is NPOV, the statement is defensibly stronger, and the readers' intelligence and reasoning ability are less insulted. &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 04:07, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:47, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I'm confused by this comment. The article hasn't had the "all" in for a week or more now. Removing "all" and leaving just "climate models" was Silverbacks very sensible suggestion, to which I happily assent. Why are you still worrying about the "all" on 27th Jan?


 * I can't take credit for it. I thought it was Cortonin's suggestion, and thought it was a good one and JonGwynne kept putting most or many in, and things cycled around.  I supported this compromise, but can't claim credit.--Silverback 17:49, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I just checked and my recollection was correct. It was Cortonin's idea that I liked.  Here is the place he first proposed it --Silverback 17:52, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Further thoughts I think what gets people up in arms, is that Dr. Connolley's style of writing is "lecturing," not in the negative sense, but like if you were simply listening to a lecture at University. If I was in "climatology 101" and the Prof said "Now, you see, all climate models predict global warming, there are none that predict cooling" I probably wouldn't bat an eye; I'd know exactly what the Prof meant by that. He'd mean reputable, published, well written, easily duplicated, sound theory.


 * (William M. Connolley 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Which is exactly what I mean too.

But seeing that in an encylcopedia raises problems. Whereas when listening to a lecture, you are being guided through the subject by someone who has earned your respect and trust


 * (William M. Connolley 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Probably not. Most people listening to lectures are taking argument-from-authority - they are trusting that their university or whatever has appointed sensible people.


 * You're missing the point. Encyclopedias are not lectures, and regardless, Wikipedia doesn't appoint anyone. &mdash;Ben 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * And argument from authority of the contributer is not appropriate for Wikipedia, because it tends to fall under either original research or POV.    &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 12:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * We implicitly accept argument from authority often on wikipedia, for instance, on the conscription page we have contributers from various countries explaining the conscription laws in their countries. We don't make them document everything, these things would be common knowledge for them, for us they are relative experts.  Similarly there is common knowledge in fields of science, although when points are controversial, the contributer should disclose that.--Silverback 12:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)

and whom you understand, guidance is not really the job of an encylopedia, nor can an encyclopedia accomplish this. Encyclopedias aren't written for guidance in learning, they're just plain old observation, right?


 * (William M. Connolley 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Sounds dubious, but applied to this case: the observation is that all gcms of the sort you've described predict warming, and that all those who would like to say otherwise consistently fail to find an example.


 * Which is shifting the burden of proof. It's a logical fallacy called argument from ignorance. The burden of proof is on you, and that proof must either be included in the encyclopedia, or the argument simply left unmentioned. &mdash;Ben 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * All pink elephants can fly. If you can't find a counterexample of a pink elephant which can't fly, then clearly all pink elephants can fly.  We document inclusions at Wikipedia, we don't include something because the converse is undocumented.  So in order to say "All climate models ____", you need to document all climate models, and then document that they all fulfill the stated claim.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 12:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * All climate models are represented at major conferences and in reviews of the literature. You are completely missing the scientific point.  It is not the fact that all climate models predict large temperature increases that is controversial. Frankly that is not remarkable given the poor state of the science and the relative few number of models.  What is controversial is the size and the conflicting details of the predictions, because they disagree with each other and with the expectations from publish paleo research. --Silverback 12:28, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) If you were being fair, you would be forced to agree that I *have* earned your trust by being consistently right.


 * Sorry, but you have not earned my trust merely by being "consistently right." You can whine about how "unfair" this is all you want. &mdash;Ben 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The reader is left on their own to determine their opinions and learn the subject for themselves. The best encyclopedias make this easy. WMC I'd like to know your thoughts on this, whether you agree that maybe you're putting too much emphasis on trying to teach the subject rather than writing about it? It's obvious people are having difficulty here, even though they are obviously very interested and passionate about the subject, and I want to know what you think of this, and any suggestions you might have in improving the situation. &mdash;Ben 06:20, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC).


 * (William M. Connolley 09:39, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I think I'm doing my best to make these articles NPOV and reflect the state of the science. Others - JG most notably - are doing their best to insert skeptic bias into them. You haven't tried to bias them (I'm happy to record that) but by your choice of vote on the RFC you're not helping. As for trying to teach the subject rather than writing about it? - its hard to know what to understand by this. Wiki isn't just a collection of facts, things need explanation too.


 * I'd rather see suggestions from you on improving the situation. However, I'll respond to your questions. First of all, my contribution to the RFC is intended to help the article, not to defend your actions and contributions (read the statement of dispute), which in my opinion are unacceptable in Wikipedia and detrimental to the quality of the article. What I mean by "teach the subject rather than writing about it" should be straightforward. Teaching involves argument and lines of reasoning, observation and description does not. Wikipedia does not contain essays and theses. Things often do require explanation. However, explanation in an encylcopedia is always short simple straightforward common sense, obvious analogy, etc. Not convoluted lines of argument which sometimes even involve foreknowledge of the subject. For example, your contribution on the GW page (and I can tell it's yours without even looking) includes this:


 * The effect of clouds is also critical. Clouds have competing effects on the climate; everyone has noticed that surface temperature drops when a cloud passes overhead on an otherwise hot, sunny summer day. So clouds cool the surface by reflecting sunlight back into space. However, many people have also noticed that clear winter nights tend to be colder than cloudy winter nights. That is because clouds block the radiation of heat away from the surface (and eventually into space), and radiate it back to the surface of the Earth. [9] (http://liftoff.msfc.nasa.gov/academy/space/greenhouse.html) If CO2 changes the amount or distribution of clouds, it could have various complex effects on the climate. In the 2001 IPCC report on climate change, the possible changes in cloud cover were highlighted as one of the dominant uncertainties in predicting future climate change.


 * Given this, it is not correct to imagine that there is a debate between those who "believe in" and "oppose" the theory that adding CO2 to the Earth's atmosphere will result in warmer surface temperatures on Earth, on average. Rather, the debate is about what the net effect of the addition of CO2 will be, and whether changes in water vapor, clouds, and so on will cancel out its warming effect.The observed warming of the Earth over the past 50 years appears to be at odds with the skeptics' theory that climate feedbacks will cancel out the CO2 warming, unless other environmental factors have contributed to that warming.


 * I've highlighted the parts which are lecturing. Notice how the start of the first paragraph is not highlighted, even though it involves explanation. There is a difference between simple explanation and argument. Wikipedia is not the place for "Global Warming, an explanation and argument for, by William M. Connolley." &mdash;Ben 21:08, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well that's where you run into problems. Making an article exlusively reflect the current scientific consensus in a controversial field will never be NPOV.  To make an encyclopedia article NPOV, we can't aim for "the state of the science", that's what journal review articles are for.  We have to aim for describing the phenomenon, describing all of its properties, describing the science behind it, and describing the views of the significant related players.  That's what you have to aim for in a NPOV encyclopedia.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 12:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * What makes you think the "state of the science", is a "consensus"? Even the "consensus" among models is only on direction, there is quite a spread of specific predictions.  The fact that even the lower end of that spread is larger than one would expect from the paleo data is controversial.  Sometimes the "consensus" is about where they are weak.  There is a consensus that they all are weak in cloud and aerosol physics.  Although they seem united in expecting that when these weaknesses are improved that they are more likely to converge with each other than with the paleo data.  A lot of the controversy is represented on the various climate pages.  Why are you focusing on side issues like "all"?  I, myself, proposed "most" or "many" in the past, but not because I questioned what the current consensus among modelers was, but because I wanted to call attention to the artificial nature of the "agreement" between the modelers.  They agree because they have weaknesses in the same areas of physics and are tweaking their models to fit the same modern temperature records and initial conditions.  If you want to find models that are exceptions to the "all", the place to look is at the same models before they are considered "fixed" and ready for publication.  Of course, you won't find these in the literature, because they aren't published, and you won't find predictions based on them, because they aren't used to make predictions.  In defense of the modelers, the physics that has been proposed to account for indirect solar influences and other proposed mechanisms, is not fleshed out enough yet to be incorporated into their models, so it is unreasonable to expect them to be there.  I decided that disputing the "all" was not the most correct way to make my point.  This point about the models is made later in the article and WMC did not keep it out, although he made dismissive counter statements. I trust statements that get into the article to withstand such counter statements.  --Silverback 12:45, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Because there are two things that are important for NPOV: Content, and presentation.  You are correct that there should be more meaningful discussion of the accuracy and completeness of the physics used within climate models.  I kept trying to work those things into some of the articles in terms of the shortcomings in dealing with clouds, but most of those edits got reverted as well.  But presentation is also important for NPOV, as even a technically correct statement which is presented in a pushy fashion is not NPOV.  For example, the statement, "All published climate models predict ____" is bad POV, regardless of what it's saying they predict.  That statement is bad first because it says "All", which is a needless sweeping generality, and second because it needlessly throws in the word "published" which comes across as a pushy form of scientific elitism.  The rhetorical connotations of a statement have to ALSO be considered when trying to ascertain what makes NPOV.  If I remove the phrase "All published" from that, I'm not doing it because I think they weren't published, or because I necessarily disagree with the conclusion of their predictions.  I would simply be removing it because it's rhetorically structured as pushy POV.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 04:55, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 10:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) "all published GCMs" is perfectly sensible NPOV. You're only objecting because you don't like the result.


 * First, I just said I wasn't objecting because of anything to do with the result. If you think I lose sleep at night over any positive or negative results of climate research, then you've seriously misjudged me.  Second, "all published climate models"


 * (William M. Connolley 21:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You're *still* writing *all* climate models. Its true, but it isn't in the article any more... why do you keep referring to it?


 * is not only a sweeping generality which is easily proven wrong by a single counterexample (such as, for example, published models which were once used to support global cooling)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) No, that point fails too. The article specifically says *using CO2 forcing*. The models back in the 70's predicted warming too, when forced by CO2.


 * , but it is quite rhetorically pushy. "All published climate models" is in the exact same rhetorical category as "Scientific orthodoxy ridicules Lomborg and tries to discredit him."  Now it's pretty easy to document the objective components that supporters of the "orthodox" view have actively attempted to "discredit" Lomborg, but simply phrasing a sentence in that manner is rhetorically pushy.  It's the same as the statement, "He recognizes that the increase is anthropogenic," since the term "recognize" says, "This is true, and he realizes it."  Simple rephrasings, such as "supports" instead say, "His view is that," which say the exact same thing, but without unnecessarilly predeclaring a particular truth value.  There's no NEED to predeclare a truth value there, because not declaring it does not necessarilly say it's undefined, it just saves it for more detailed description elsewhere.  I really wish you would make an effort to try to understand the rhetorical connotations of how things are phrased, because many of the time you're reverting changes in order to try to meet the perspective you view as more accurate, and the changes you're reverting back to are simply pushy POV in the sense of the three examples I gave here.  And before you reply to this paragraph with some matter-of-fact reply like, "This statement is correct, this statement is incorrect," please stop to listen to what I'm ACTUALLY saying, which is that in order to achieve NPOV, certain statements require rewording in order to not come across as a commercial for a particular perspective.  NPOV means that statements which don't need to support any particular perspective don't support any particular perspective.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 14:59, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 12:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You're *still* writing all but all isn't there any more. Why are you so hung up on this? The statement would certainly be true with "all" in place, for the obvious reason that there are loads of people - like you of JG, but also far better informed people like Lindzen - who would love to find a model that shows cooling. But they have failed. I wish you would appreciate this point instead of continuing this sterile debate.


 * I just read what WMC wrote, and I am shocked to hear such propagandistic language coming from someone who considers himself a scientist. You seems to be saying that what you're doing is trying to edit the article so that it solely reflects the view of the current majority at the IPCC - or whatever you consider the proper source for your revealed truth.  That is inherently POV.  You've just stated unequivocally that you're here to promote that POV and eliminate what you refer to as "skeptical bias" (which statement serves only to announce his own bias).--JonGwynne 19:08, 27 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 10:00, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Yes, I'm doing my best to remove skeptical bias. This is inherently NPOV. You are doing your best to insert skeptical bias (possibly unconciously, because you may not know how badly out of touch you are with the science).


 * How can you possibly be a scientist and believe that skepticism reprents "bias" or is anything other than absolutely critical for good science? Good science stands up to skepticism without having to censor or avoid it.  The work currently being done with climate models is a perfect example of being badly in need of some healthy skepticism.  Maybe then those working on them would spend less time "tuning" climate models to reinforce their pre-conceptions and more time developing climte models that are able to show an accurate picture of the past and present before they start claiming they can predict the future.--JonGwynne 15:18, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 18:06, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Because in the GW debate, the word "skeptic" has aquired a particular meaning - as a label for contrarians - and it doesn't have the usual obvious meaning of someone who thinks and doubts and wants to see good evidence. Its a bit like "democrat" in US politics.


 * So what are you saying? That "skeptic" is a term of art within...  within what?  Your organization?  You might want to make that more obvious.  Otherwise you run the risk of being seen as an extremist.  So, for the record, do you think that skepticism (in the literal sense - i.e. "someone who thinks and doubts and wants to see good evidence") is a healthy thing?--JonGwynne 21:30, 28 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 21:27, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) "skeptic" is a recognised term within the GW debate. You know that, we all know that. But it doesn't mean someone who thinks and doubts and wants to see good evidence within this context - its just a label for a side. All sides agree (as do I) that someone who thinks and doubts and wants to see good evidence" is a healthy thing. All sites assert that they subscribe to this attitude.


 * Assuming what you say is true for a moment, what do you call someone who "thinks and doubts and wants to see good evidence"?  I trust we'll agree that this is a description of a scrupulous scientist.  However, the problem is that it is far from clear that "All sides agree (as do I) that someone who thinks and doubts and wants to see good evidence" is a healthy thing".  It seems pretty clear from your actions that you don't want to see information which even tangentially questions the orthodoox view of Global Warming Theory.  In fact, I suspect there would be considerable argument over the characterization of Global Warming Theory as a theory.  I imagine there are a significant number of people who believe it to be firmly established fact.--JonGwynne 23:42, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 12:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)) And I think its perfectly obvious that you are doing your best to introduce skeptic bias into the pages while I'm doing my best to keep them NPOV. As a counter example, consider the Von S bit, which I haven't objected to (I don't actullay think it should be there with that prominence, because its untested work, but I have made no attempt to remove it). As to what-do-you-call-someone, the answer is probably "scientist" (for the professionals). And GW *is* a firmly established fact.

Cortonin, I think your deletion of "all" is just fine. I have only been inserting "all", when some person has then gone and inserted "most" or "many", the version without the "all" reads just fine and is probably acceptable to WMC as well.--Silverback 07:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)

WMC, I think you misunderstand the skeptical point of view. I think the skepticism is not being pushed as a bias, in fact, if it wasn't for the fact people were proposing ill advised costly trillion dollar solutions based on this climate model science, measures that would probably be ill advised even if the science was correct, the skepticism not have to be so strident. It is those who point to the climate modeling predictions and emphasis their "consensus", that seem to be arguing that more scientiests fear mongering, shouting louder and in unison is the way to decide what is true. The criticisms based on the state of the climate model physics, the unexplained stronger correlation with solar activity and the lower impact of CO2 seen in the paleo data are all legitimate. I agree that it is injudicious in an encyclopedia article to insert duplicative and distorted brief "skeptical" qualifiers that are covered in more proper detail elsewhere. Why JonGwynne is doing is not skepticism but more like biblical proof texting in his parsing words.--Silverback 07:48, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * I attempted at one time to change many of the usages of "skeptic" in the global warming article to read "critic" instead of "skeptic". The reason I attempted to do this is because the word "skeptic" was being used in such a manner that it read like someone saying "dirty liberal" or some equally unproductive attempt at negative categorization.  Half the usages of the word "skeptic" in the climatology articles here seem to read as if they're followed by spitting in the dirt.  My attempts to remedy this were reverted with the reason along the lines of, "That's how climatologists have always referred to skeptics."  Then I was told that they should instead be changed to "denialists".  I would really like if we could make some progress toward respecting the idea that one can question scientific research using reason and logic, rather than simply calling anyone who questions a result ignorant, close-minded, or in denial.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 12:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * There are countless times where WMC has referred to "skeptical bias" or "skeptical POV" as something which needs to be purged, and then defines this as anything which questions the scientific consensus. This is essentially most of the reason this RFC was created in the first place, because purging all disagreement with the scientific consensus is officially against Wikipedia policy.  We are explicitely instructed to INCLUDE disagreement with the current scientific consensus, as this disagreement is part of the sum of human knowledge.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 12:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)
 * What scientific disagreement with the consensus has been purged or excluded? Solar variation, cosmic ray mechanism, alternate interpretations of the data, disagreement between the models and weaknesses of the models are all included. It is clear that if there were models that disagreed with the consensus they would be included as well.  --Silverback 14:12, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, for example right now there are people trying to get some mention of the disagreement over the highly disputed hockeystick graph into the global warming page. Yet this is being held up by disapproval of the researchers who have disputed the hockeystick graph, and by WMC's opinion which is, "I think MBH are correct and M&M are wrong".  Yet the fact remains, the dispute is published and active.  Now wouldn't it be nice if things like that just went into the articles without a whole lot of shouting, argument, and resistance just because they challenge beloved centerpieces?  You won't find an article like quantum mechanics arguing so much about crap like that.  Why do we have to do it for the climatology articles just to make any progress?  It has nothing to do with science, it has to do with people, and with the fact that people are getting emotional about science.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 14:45, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * I believe that has been covered on one of the other pages several weeks ago, even though it was only published and responded to on the internet, and not in a peer review journal. If it is not in one of the articles it probably could be if someone can write it up well. It wouldn't be easy because the controversy is in the minutia of the analysis.  This is still a developing issue and not a good one for the skeptics, because it could just report the some of the back and forth of the controversy with charges of mistaken statistical methods by the "skeptics" versus mistaken handling and combining of their data while ignoring some of it by the original authors.  I don't see much there for either side yet.  While the hockey stick analysis has been questioned, it hasn't been questioned in a  peer reviewed article yet.  The original authors need to more fully document the steps in their analysis and the programs they used in their analysis so their results can be thoroughly vetted.--Silverback 15:55, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 16:37, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)) You (Cortonin) are being one sided here. Look at all the hassle over trying to force the word "most" into the intro: it could be solved easily by finding a counter example but none of the people desperate to put it in could find one; it was an issue that had been discussed previously, nevertheless a huge and pointles storm got stirred up. Its reasons like that which make it hard to have time to go over the real issues. The M&M/MBH stuff is already covered on the T hist of last 1000y pages, and they are linked from the GW page of course. The GW page is an overview: it needs to present the overall picture, which should be the scientific consensus. And it does (or did, before the recent fighting). The T hist pages have room for detail and should, and do, discuss the dispute over this record. One thing that always makes me suspicious of those questioning MBH and supporting M&M is they *never* address the fact that other records exist, all of which show similar things. MM05 isn't published yet; Rutherford, Mann et al have a rebutal that also isn't published yet; lets save discussion of them until they *are* published. No one wants to see science done by press release.


 * "The GW page is an overview: it needs to present the overall picture, which should be the scientific consensus" Allow me to emphasize:  The scientific consensus is not the overall picture.  Why can you not understand this?  It has been stated many times, it has been explained to you carefully and painstakenly, and it is even listed as official wikipedia policy that the scientific consensus is NOT the overall picture, nor is the scientific consensus equal to NPOV.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 23:33, 29 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 12:43, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)) The scientific consensus is the overall view, and should be presented first, and with greatest prominence (assuming we're talking about GW from the scientific POV; if you're talking about it from the public policy debate POV then the answer could be quite different). Skeptical stuff should be represented, proportional to the weight of its science and the numbers of its supporters. By that criterion, its grossly over represented on these pages, but you don't know that, because you don't read the papers regularly, you just read the web/media, which overweights the skeptic side.


 * Maybe in your mind "the scientific consensus is the overall view", but not here. That's not Wikipedia policy.  Please read the link I gave you.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 18:42, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 20:29, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)) I've read the page. Its you that need to, specifically the section that says:


 * Now an important qualification. Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views. We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by only a small minority of people deserved as much attention as a majority view. That may be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. If we are to represent the dispute fairly, we should present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.


 * (end WMC)


 * Perhaps we should include the following clarification:


 * From Jimbo Wales, September 2003, on the mailing list:


 * If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
 * (William M. Connolley 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Which is exactly what is done, largely by refs to IPCC
 * If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
 * (William M. Connolley 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) This is harder; because "prominent" in this case can mean scientific (in which case you're in trouble) or public-arena (in which case you should have no great trouble)
 * If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it doesn't belong in Wikipedia (except perhaps in some ancillary article) regardless of whether it's true or not; and regardless of whether you can prove it or not.
 * (William M. Connolley 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) This case describes the what-heats-greenhouses section: as I've shown, met texts that express an opinion correctly say its suppression-of-convection.


 * Let's also include:


 * If we're going to represent the sum total of human knowledge, then we must concede that we will be describing views repugnant to us without asserting that they are false.


 * the task is to represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view
 * (William M. Connolley 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) Wise advice. Its would be nice to represent skepticism for the psuedo science it is, but somehow I doubt you'd accept that.


 * There is a minority of Wikipedians who feel so strongly about this problem that they believe Wikipedia should adopt a "scientific point of view" rather than a "neutral point of view." However, it has not been established that there is really a need for such a policy, given that the scientists' view of pseudoscience can be clearly, fully, and fairly explained to those who might be misled by pseudoscience.


 * Now, if this even applies to pseudoscience, don't you think it applies to minority scientific viewpoints within climate change??? And while we're at it, let's quote some more related passages:


 * The best way to avoid warfare over bias is to remember that we are all reasonably intelligent, articulate people here, or we wouldn't be working on this and caring so much about it. We have to make it our goal to understand each others' perspectives and to work hard to make sure that those other perspectives are fairly represented. When any dispute arises as to what the article should say, or what is true, we must not adopt an adversarial stance; we must do our best to step back and ask ourselves, "How can this dispute be fairly characterized?" This has to be asked repeatedly as each new controversial point is stated. It is not our job to edit Wikipedia so that it reflects our own idiosyncratic views and then defend those edits against all-comers; it is our job to work together, mainly adding new content, but also, when necessary, coming to a compromise about how a controversy should be described, so that it is fair to all sides.


 * Now, what you're saying is that "global warming skeptics" are an "extremely small minority with no prominent adherents or reference texts" and thus their views don't belong on Wikipedia.


 * (William M. Connolley 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) At the moment I'm saying you're doing a poor job of reading my words. I said: Skeptical stuff should be represented, proportional to the weight of its science and the numbers of its supporters.. Thats fully in agreement with the policies and Jimbos wise words.


 * First of all, concern over the legitimacy of prominent global warming conclusions is not at all small in the world, it's actually quite significant. Even among scientists concern about the prominent global warming conclusions is also rather significant, and there are plenty of books, articles, and outspoken scientists who oppose the most prominent conclusions.  Second of all, reread that last quoted paragraph, and then please try to obey it.     &mdash; Cortonin | Talk 22:59, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)


 * (William M. Connolley 09:49, 31 Jan 2005 (UTC)) No, you are wrong about that. The number of scientifc skeptics is tiny. Roger Pielke argues http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/archives/climate_change/index.html#000304 that even some of the most notable skeptics really support the consensus, but I don't quite agree with him.