Revision as of 15:18, 17 June 2010

The Holding Pen

Ocean acidification

Your ArbCom userpage comment

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Abd-William M. Connolley

Fools and their foolishness

Current

I just found this

Oh look: http://ourchangingclimate.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/web-iquette-for-climate-discussions/ Isn't that good? William M. Connolley (talk) 22:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

He used web-iquette for medical discussions as a guide. That reminds me of How Doctors Think which is a great work on how brilliant, well trained, experienced people can get things wrong every day. I wonder if there is a way to do the same thing. Ignignot (talk) 13:17, 16 October 2009 (UTC)

Wondring aloud

I have to wonder if there isn't some deliberate foot dragging, given sentiments previously expressed by Arbcom and other insiders. Lt. Gen. Pedro Subramanian (talk) 22:59, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Um. I missed the Raul stuff in August and now feel guilty about not expressing my sympathy (literally in this case :-(). Old score settling I suspect William M. Connolley (talk) 23:05, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What Raul stuff in Aug? Email if you prefer. --BozMo talk 07:03, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Nothing secret, just not common knowledge. It is off on some arbcomm-y type page; Raul dropping CU tools; I'd find the link except someone watching can probably find it quicker William M. Connolley (talk) 09:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration Committee/Noticeboard#Raul654 -Atmoz (talk) 17:06, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Thermal underwear

Idealized greenhouse model, or the section below

May I ask a question? I stress that I am not trying to do any original research, but only want to improve the GW article by explaining what is fundamental to the AGW hypothesis. I don't think the current article really explains it very well. My question: I did some Googling and the Stefan-Boltzmann equation (or rather a derivative of it) seems to be fundamental. But there are two versions of it, as follows: S0/4*(1-alpha) = e*sigmaT^4 S0/4*(1-alpha)+G = sigmaT^4 where alpha is albedo, S0 is a constant solar radiative flux (units W/m^2), T is temp in K, and sigma is a constant. The two sides of the equation both have units W/m^2. In the first equation e is 'emissivity' which is unitless and is the ratio of energy radiated by a particular material to energy radiated by a black body at the same temperature. I think of it as an 'underpants factor'. You have a black body throbbing with radiation, which will cool unless you keep it warm. So you put some underpants on it, to keep the cold out, i.e. stop it radiating so much. Hence CO2 and water vapour are like thermal underwear to keep the earth warm (if e is 100%, the temperature is about -18 deg C, for if you solve for e with current temperature, assume 15 deg C, you find e is about 60%). I am assuming e is constant whatever the temperature for exactly the same material, is that correct? In reality e will change as the material of the atmosphere changes (more CO2, or more vapour). In the second equation G is a number, units also W/m^2, which is a measure of the influence a factor has in altering the balance of incoming and outgoing energy in the Earth-atmosphere system. If you solve for G for 15 deg C, you get about 150 W/m^2. My puzzle is whether G is also constant, if for other reasons (e.g. change in solar radiation, change in albedo) the temperature changes. Intuitively it won't be constant. Why represent it this way? Apologise if I have misunderstood, and please correct any mistakes (I am quite new to this, but it is interesting). Again, I am not trying to do any research, just finding out some facts that could be put into layman's language and hopefully into the article. I think thermal underwear is a better analogy than greenhouses, e.g. HistorianofScience (talk) 11:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I really don't think all this talk of underwear and throbbing bodies is appropriate. Please keep such impulses to yourself. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 19:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC) You are the Walrus and you talk about throbbing bodies? --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:28, 10 January 2010 (UTC) My personal preference is for exploding underpants, but they banned them :-( William M. Connolley (talk) 19:31, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Actually it was Long Johns I was looking for but couldn't find the category until now. Anyway I prefer the leather ones. Seriously, can anyone answer my question above ? HistorianofScience (talk) 19:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I think you're looking for the one-sentence summary of the greenhouse effect, which is the earth is warmer with an atmosphere, because it receives heat from both the sun and the atmosphere. Your G, above, is the heat from the atmosphere. Put that way, it becomes obvious that G is not contstant, in time (long or short term) or space William M. Connolley (talk) 20:15, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for the explanation but I'm still not sure I understand. Suppose we turned off the sun like an electric light. Then the earth no longer receives heat from the sun. Does it still receive heat from the atmosphere? Until the atmosphere cools down, yes. Then no William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Surely not. Isn't the correct explanation that the atmosphere is acting like a blanket around the earth, preventing it from cooling as fast as a black body would? No. You need to read what I wrote and understand it. Until you do, you will get nowhere William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) So it's not heating the earth, it's preventing it from cooling as fast as it would in the black body case. No William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) And the heat energy it is losing should be identical, at the instant the sun turns off, to what it was receiving from the sun. If that is correct, G is the difference between the W/m^2 that the black body would emit, and the W/m^2 actually emitted. No? HistorianofScience (talk) 20:35, 10 January 2010 (UTC) As a very very broad-brush approximation, the atmosphere receives no heat directly from the sun, since it is transparent to SW. The atmosphere is heated by LW from the earth (which itself, of course, is ultimately sourced from SW from the sun absorbed at the earth's sfc. Can you cope with maths? If you can, this is easily written down - indeed it is somewhere, I only need to point you at it William M. Connolley (talk) 20:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC) I can cope with maths. HistorianofScience (talk) 20:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Would it be more like those rude transparent underpants then? HistorianofScience (talk) 20:50, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Fine. Writing it all out is quicker than finding it, so... simplifying, the sun shines 4S units on the uniform earth (and since the area of a circle is 1/4 the area of a corresponding sphere the 4 drops out), which is a black body (forget albedo for the moment, it makes no real difference). The atmosphere is transparent to SW, and can be considered as a single layer not in conductive contact with the surface. There is no diurnal cycle, all is averaged out, all is in equilibrium. So at the sfc (with atmosphere) we have the following equation: S + G = rT^4 (the surface is black, captures all solar SW and transforms it into LW which it re-radiates) and G is the radiation from the atmosphere. Meanwhile, in the atmosphere, 2G = rT^4 (the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). As it happens G = r(T_a)^4 but we don't care about that for tihs analysis. Hence, S + G = 2G, hence S = G, hence T_1 = (2S/r)^0.25. Meanwhile, in the absence of the atmosphere, we clearly would have T_2 = (S/r)^0.25. T_1 > T_2 (by a factor of 2^0.25) and (T_1 - T_2) is the greenhouse effect. William M. Connolley (talk) 21:02, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Also, this and the linked also refers, but is harder William M. Connolley (talk) 21:12, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks (appreciated). How do you get from S + G = rT^4 to 2G = rT^4 without the assumption that S=G (which you later derive). The intervening bracketed "the atmospheric layer is totally opaque to the surface LW, is itself isothermal, and being a layer radiates both up and downwards). " seems like an explanation, but I didn't understand it. The atmospheric layer absorbs all the surface LW, which is the rT^4. It is in equilibrium. It radiates , equally, upwards and downwards, G. So it gains rT^4 and loses 2G, so those two are equal William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) If the earth receives all the SW, then reflects it back to the layer, why do you say earlier that the layer heats the earth? Why isn't it the other way round. No, it doesn't reflect the SW - it is assumed black. It absorbs all the SW and re-radiates it as LW. Yes, "the earth heats the atmosphere" can also be regarded as true William M. Connolley (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC) Thanks for taking the time. HistorianofScience (talk) 21:51, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Blast from the past

Not to creep you out, but I was looking through old RfAs and I found this, from your second, and succesful, RfA. To the question of: How do you see Misplaced Pages in 2010 ?

OK, for what its worth, here is the rest: I see[REDACTED] continuing its growth and influence. The problems of scaling will continue: how to smoothly adapt current practices to a larger community. At the moment this appears to be working mostly OK. Problems exist with the gap between arbcomm level and admin level: I expect this to have to be bridged/changed someway well before 2010. I very much hope more experts - from my area of interests, particularly scientists - will contribute: at the moment all too few do. To make this work, we will have to find some way to welcome and encourage them and their contributions without damaging the wiki ethos. This isn't working terribly well at the moment. I predict that wiki will still be a benevolent dictatorship in 2010 - the problems of transition to full user sovereignty are not worth solving at this stage. William M. Connolley 20:36, 8 January 2006 (UTC).

Thought you'd be amused. Shadowjams (talk) 07:02, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hmm yes. "Prediction is hard, especially of the future" as they say William M. Connolley (talk) 08:25, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Ha. So they say. I'm really good at the past prediction part though. Shadowjams (talk) 08:49, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

More thermals

                          |
                   G ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. Emits G, up and down, thermal radiation. Absorbs S+G.
                ----------------------------
                     |    |
                     |    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
                   G V
                                      ^ S+G
                                      |
                -----------------------------
                Sfc. Abs S(SW)+G(LW). Thus emits (S+G)(LW). Thus S+G = rT^4

                          |
                   0 ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
                ----------------------------
                     |    |
                     |    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
                   0 V
                                      ^ 0
                                      |
                -----------------------------
                Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). At 0K. Doesn't radiate.

                          |
                   0 ^    V Solar input. (4S ->) S
                     |
                ----------------------------
                Atmosphere. At 0K. Doesn't radiate.
                ----------------------------
                     |    |
                     |    V Solar straight through - atmos transparent, still S
                   0 V
                                      ^ G_T
                                      |
                -----------------------------
                Sfc. Abs S(SW)+0(LW). Has warmed up somewhat, to T. Emits rT^4, call this G_T.

Service award update

Hello, William M. Connolley! The requirements for the service awards have been updated, and you may no longer be eligible for the award you currently display. Don't worry! Since you have already earned your award, you are free to keep displaying it. However, you may also wish to update to the current system. Sorry for any inconvenience. — the Man in Question (in question) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Argh, I hate it when these things change :-( Oh well, I'll see if the new one looks any prettier than the old :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 12:59, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Some help with links would be appreciated

I see that you're (still) neck deep in "The Dramaz!", but when you get a chance I'd appreciate it if yourself or someone you know could take a look at Eric Rignot and try to straighten out the climatology related redlinks there. Don't worry about the link to Lew Allen Director's Award, I'll take care of that myself eventually (unless someone else wants to write a little article about the award. Don't let me stop you!). Thanks!
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 15:25, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK. By golly, but that is an awful photo! William M. Connolley (talk) 15:49, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Done a bit, others have too. You might want to pay attention to the regrettable possibility of it being a copyvio, mind William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the assist, I appreciate it.
— V = I * R (talk to Ohms law) 10:23, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

On refactoring and a higher standard of civility

Following Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#William M. Connolley refactoring and interjecting his comments in those of others and engaging in antagonistic attacks on fellow editors:

User:William M. Connolley is required to refrain until 2010-07-27 from editing others' talkpage posts in pages subject to this probation even in cases where the talk page guidelines would otherwise indicate that it could or should be done; he is further warned to refrain from using septic and similar derogatory terms, and to promptly refactor any unintentional typos.

The area of probation is to be interpreted to include anywhere that a topic related to or a dispute stemming from climate change is being discussed, including but not limited to articletalk, usertalk, and WP and WT namespaces. Editing others' posts explicitly includes adding {{cot}}, {{discussion top}}, and similar templates used to close discussions; an exception is made for archiving discussions which have received no posts for at least one week. Your right to point out cases where refactoring should occur is in no wise restricted. Please be careful when throwing around terms that might be interpreted to refer to your fellow volunteers - even if a subtle dig falls within the letter of WP:Civility, it can still sting and contribute to the level of dysfunction at those pages. - 2/0 (cont.) 21:33, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

This is silly and a victory for the yahoo's; unfortunately you've succumbed to the mob. Ah well William M. Connolley (talk) 21:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Following discussion with the other admins who commented on the original discussion, the above restriction has been clarified: removing whole comments from this page is fine. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:24, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Code fragments found

Just thouht you might be interested in this news item about code fragments being found. It came to my attention as it was next to this story which has a pretty decent subheading. I don't have access to more than the abstract, doubtless this will lead to interesting discussions. Perhaps a bit offtopic at the moment, but something to look forward to. . . dave souza, talk 17:59, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Re: the water vapor, email me and you will get a PDF. (Re: Roman law - very cool.) Awickert (talk) 18:06, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

was due to an increase in water vapour in the high atmosphere - odd, the version I heard was stratospheric *drying*. Yes, pdf please William M. Connolley (talk) 18:09, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

From my limited understanding, the point is increase = warmer climate, subsequent drying = recent lack of warming predicted by some models, outcome possible solution to puzzle and improved modelling. All very interesting. . . dave souza, talk 19:18, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Apologies to all: my subscription doesn't work until it appears in print (e.g., until it stops being a "Science Express" article). Shoot. Sorry. You'll all get it once I can access it. I will send emails to friends at other institutions and see if they can get it though. Awickert (talk) 19:47, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have this page watchlisted anymore. I am willing to provide copies for papers behind paywalls within reason. -Atmoz (talk) 17:35, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Outcome of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC

Outcome of Misplaced Pages:General sanctions/Climate change probation/Requests for enforcement#TheGoodLocust, MarkNutley, WMC:

• William M. Connolley is restricted until 2010-05-03 from making more than one revert to any article in the probation area in any 24 hour period.
• William M. Connolley is required until 2010-08-03 to initiate or participate in discussion at the relevant talkpage any time he makes a revert to any article in the probation area, excepting to revert blatant, obvious vandalism.

- 2/0 (cont.) 04:01, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

Your editing privileges have been suspended for 48 hours

I have enacted a 48 hour block on your account LessHeard vanU (talk) 13:49, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Your lack of interest in the actual content of the wiki is duly noted; as I said above: you've chosen the worthless, the yahoos, the septics and the fools above those who actually have a clue William M. Connolley (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Note: I've removed the goo and dribble from the above, leaving only the substance William M. Connolley (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2010 (UTC)

Simple:Misplaced Pages

I want to make sure that you are aware of this edit to Black Body. I had never heard of Simple:Misplaced Pages before, but apparently, I can now create a page there with the same name as a page here and they will be automatically linked. I don't know how to get that bot banned, so I am telling you. If you think that this is no big deal, please say so. (And yes, I know you have an account there. As of today so do I. Do you want **baby or should I take it:) Q Science (talk) 19:42, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

24 hour block, and extension to warning regarding inappopropriate words and phrases

Per the preceding section, you have been blocked for 24 hours for violating your 1RR restriction on Climate Change related articles.
You are also further notified that you shall not use demeaning or derogatory terms or phrases, broadly construed, when interacting with or discussing other contributors in respect of the General sanctions/Climate change probation area of articles (that is, not specifically on the article talkpages and probation pages but anywhere within the project). LessHeard vanU (talk) 21:06, 2 April 2010 (UTC)

Good grief you're a biased bozo William M. Connolley (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

Thanks

		The Tireless Contributor Barnstar
		Although I usually disagree with you, I just wanted to say thanks for all your contributions to the various global warming related articles. And also for occasionally making me smile. Thepm (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

Why thank you, that is very kind, both for the thought and the manner of giving William M. Connolley (talk) 11:59, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

My Compliments

I don't often see myself agreeing with /these, so when I do, I thought I'd take the opportunity to compliment you. Fell Gleaming 23:05, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

Dynamic topography

To William and his talk page stalkers:

Would you (ambiguously singular or plural) like to expand the portion of "Dynamic topography" that is about the oceans?

I am planning on doing some expansion of the solid-Earth-geophysics portion of that article (which currently covers both the dynamically-supported ocean elevations and topography due to motion of material in the mantle), but I think it would be a disservice to continue to ignore the ocean part. Ideally, we would have two separate standalone articles.

Awickert (talk) 17:26, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Good point. How analogous are they? I never got through reading Gill, so maybe now is my chance :-) William M. Connolley (talk) 18:29, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Well, I don't know anything about it in the oceans; in the Earth it is due to motion in the mantle that creates normal tractions on interfaces such as the surface, the upper/lower mantle discontinuity, the core-mantle boundary, etc. Since it is supposed to be about the motion of seawater, I can imagine how the physics could be identical, but I can't say for sure and about to head out the door: off to see a friend perform in Guettarda's favorite musical, Awickert (talk) 18:51, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Careful. That is pretty clear evidence of a Cabal, or possibly a Cadre William M. Connolley (talk) 19:22, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

Cadre, I think. In our obligatory red shirts. Guettarda (talk) 21:38, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

I'm thinking about "Gang of N." It has a nice math/science ring to it, and evokes the Gang of Four. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 02:25, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

While "Gang of N" has a certain ring to it (the definitions are so amorphous, no one can agree how many there are), I think "Gang of i" might be more appropriate. Guettarda (talk) 03:43, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

I was totally baffled by "Guettarda's favourite musical"...until I remembered that conversation. It was especially puzzling since I've never seen it, have no idea what it's actually about, and don't even know what comes after the second "Oklahoma!" Guettarda (talk) 21:37, 8 May 2010 (UTC)

It's a good one - you should see it. Back to the topic: if it turns out that the underlying physics are the same, but just expressed in different media, I bet we could leave it at one article. If they are fundamentally different, then let's split. Awickert (talk) 01:21, 9 May 2010 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Defender of the Wiki Barnstar
		For many years of defending Misplaced Pages from the forces of the abyss. Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

You were here when I joined Misplaced Pages, and you've been much more constant than I have. I've learned a great deal from you, and while we have not always agreed on who is evil and who is just different, I have always respected the passion with which you have fought what we both regard as monsters from the abyss. Regards, Ben Aveling 11:31, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Thanks! It could not have come at a happier time William M. Connolley (talk) 19:42, 17 May 2010 (UTC)

Unblock requested

{{unblock|Lar is too biased to be blocking me, and should not be blocking people he has an editing disagreement with}}

This was a good block. Putting material in a section where it is disallowed is not an "editing disagreement". Putting it back after it was removed is disruption. I doubt WMC can show I have any bias against him specifically, although I freely admit bias against some of the tactics he employs which have gotten him in trouble before. But I welcome review as always. ++Lar: t/c 18:47, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

William, please don't play into Lar's hand by doing anything rash. On the broader point you need to understand that you have to be civil especially when others are acting badly. By doing so you keep the focus on their misbehavior. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 18:59, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WMC, and support unblocking him. He has a right to reply, and as I've so recently been reminded, an editor shouldn't remove another's comments, though moving them may have been appropriate. Prodego 19:08, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

He knew where the comment belonged all along. Reinserting it in the same place instead of where it did belong, with an edit comment taking a swipe at me in passing, was disruptive edit warring. He's an experienced editor, he knows better. We don't have to clean up his mistakes. ++Lar: t/c 19:14, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Yes, you do. Comment by non-admins will be moved to the above section - not deleted. Many of us have, in good faith, moved comments from the admin to the editor section in the past when they were incorrectly placed. We did so to maintain the order of conversation. If you didn't want to move the comment you could have left it and someone else would have done it, but the rules are and the consensus has been to move comments, not delete them.

It also must be said it is a problem of your own making, since you are using the admin section inappropriately for threaded discussion, which obliges the rest of the community to take a disjointed approach to replying. Use the discussion section for discussion and there won't be a problem. Weakopedia (talk) 07:05, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Your request to be unblocked has been granted for the following reason(s): In good faith I believe that Lar is too WP:INVOLVED to make this cool down block. I am requesting review at WP:AN/I. WMC, please do not edit WP:GS/CC/RE until the hour has passed. Request handled by: - 2/0 (cont.) Unblocking administrator: Please check for active autoblocks on this user after accepting the unblock request.

Thanks to 2/0 William M. Connolley (talk) 19:58, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Request that you remove your uncivil remarks

WMC, I have removed my remarks on Fred Singer's talk, and I've requested deletion of the user subpage that you were unhappy about. Now I am politely asking you to remove your uncivil remarks from the last week, including calling me a troll and questioning SV's honesty, and any other comments that assume bad faith or a condescending tone. Would you please do that so we can start fresh here? I've removed mine and I don't intend to add them back regardless, but I'm hoping that you'll remove yours too. ATren (talk) 19:48, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I've redacted my comments that reply to yours; the substance remove but the reacting snark is now gone. I think the idea of starting fresh from here would be good; how about: I don't attack you on the probation pages or elsewhere, and you don't attack me? William M. Connolley (talk) 20:05, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I just love happy endings. Please, please, guys, can both of you stick to this? And consider that even if the other one doesn't, it's to your benefit to do so anyway. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 20:29, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

I also stand as witness to this agreement between you and will not hesitate to remind you of it. In the event that either thinks the other has broken it please could I request rather than retaliating or escalating the putatively offended party brings the diff to Boris or I? --BozMo talk 06:44, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

WMC, thank you for redacting. I will make every attempt to adhere to this "cease fire", though I suspect we may sometimes differ on what constitutes an attack. So perhaps BozMo can act as informal mediator if we disagree? I'd be OK with that. In any case, I find I've been spending far too much time here lately, so I may back entirely out of this debate for a few weeks -- hopefully that break will help us put this long-standing battle behind us. ATren (talk) 22:50, 19 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of page ban

Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of the recent complaint about your edits:

• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. The Wordsmith 19:08, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Examples of diffs presented as evidence include The Wordsmith 19:41, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

I don't think you have consensus for this close. I certainly won't waste any time appealling to you William M. Connolley (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:WIKISPEAK#consensus; first point, last sentence. -Atmoz (talk) 21:35, 20 May 2010 (UTC)

• My reading of consensus is that your appeal is successful, and the ban is hereby overturned. The discussion at the earlier Enforcement request is continued at "William M. Connolley (Revisited)" - if you feel inclined to comment there, please would you address the substance and not the participants. LessHeard vanU (talk) 15:55, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

I feel it would be helpful if you didn't edit the article, however. Please consider perhaps making a token unobtrusive and totally un-arguably good edit to the article and then leaving it without making a big deal about agreeing to any sort of voluntary prostration before the sceptic gods. Thanks. Hipocrite (talk) 15:57, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Richard Goldstone - new version

You commented recently on some BLP issues concerning Richard Goldstone. I've written a considerably expanded and improved version of the article in my userspace at User:ChrisO/Goldstone. If you have any comments about this new version before it gets transferred into article space, please feel free to comment at Talk:Richard Goldstone#New version. -- ChrisO (talk) 23:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Kick, again

Don't call people's words "twaddle," or that other people's contributions aren't useful, regardless of whether you think it's true. Even in cases where it is true -- like blatant vandalism -- you shouldn't say those things. Short Brigade Harvester Boris (talk) 00:48, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

Kick again. TheBoz is right, you kow... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:41, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Of course he is William M. Connolley (talk) 08:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Notice of page reban

Under Climate Change general sanctions, I hereby inform you of the following result of the recent complaint about your edits:

• William M. Connolley (talk · contribs) ...is prohibited from editing the article Fred Singer, or the associated talk page, talk:Fred Singer, for a period of three months.

This sanction may be appealed to myself, the appropriate noticeboard or the Arbitration Committee. ++Lar: t/c 02:55, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Sounds like the kind of malice and stupidity I expect from you William M. Connolley (talk) 08:26, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Note: the above comment was "Struck by BozMo, with a warning of a talk page block if unstruck again. Per Risker we are encourageed to "actively and openly attempt to moderate inappropriate behaviour by editors with whom they generally have a shared viewpoint on this topic area" and I am taking his request seriously, as should other kickers above. --BozMo talk 09:16, 26 May 2010 (UTC)" but I object and have unstruck William M. Connolley (talk) 11:00, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Singer, new factoid

With superb timing, I've come across a new Singer factoid, but alas people don't want it discussed here. Never mind; the archive is and the blog is William M. Connolley (talk) 20:17, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

undue at Global Warming

Without a great deal of knowledge of the subject, it strikes me that MN is correct to label "Some oil companies have funded public relations campaigns and deeply flawed research studies intended to discredit the global scientific consensus." as an undue inclusion in the lede. It is incredibly hard to argue why that sentence is so important on a scientific article; is there any kind of proper literature review agreeing with that kind of weight? --BozMo talk 18:01, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite happy to have an opportunity to agree with MN. OTOH I think it is very regrettable that a simple case of 3RR there has to spawn an enforcement request - that is far too heavyweight. Whilst I think it is certainly true that oil companies have funded PR campaigns - that may be where I part company with MN - I don't see why it belongs in the lede of the GW article. Or, as I've said, anywhere in the article really - it is just a part of the general disinformation campaign, Exxon was fairly evil about it for a while but has now largely backed off, I'm not sure you could easily say who is doing most of the funding nowadays. I'm not at all happy with TK's editing of that article - for someone who purports to be new, and who is using that newness as an excuse for evading 3RR, he is showing a distinct knowledge of AGF, consensus etc etc and using that for his POV pushing William M. Connolley (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Maybe he gained that knowledge by taking advice, but needs to slow down a bit and listen better to others. So it goes, dave souza, talk 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

"Exxon was fairly evil about it" hmm. I always find hard to call "evil". This idea that truth can be bought and politics is all about "cash and political lobbying" is pretty pervasive in the US, so your shocked European perspective is not the safest one to judge from. It is just what they do. --BozMo talk 19:51, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Sorry, missed that one earlier. Some of my not-mortgage comes from Exxon shares so I can't be too critical. But I still believe that Exxon's part in GW "discussion" was entirely malign, deliberately so. They aren't good now, just quieter William M. Connolley (talk) 08:07, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

I have never had Exxon shares but did get involved with them a bit over joint ventures, industry bodies and stuff. I always struggled to believe that they were part of the same race (let alone, on paper, religion) as I was but my total failure to comprehend makes me reticent to condemn them, I cannot believe anyone could sleep if they self-perceived the way I perceive them. Mobil used to be much more obviously ethical. By the way, I looked for you on the Cambridgeshire beekeepers stall at Wimpole yesterday but although I am not sure I would recognise you, the guy there had shorts on and definitely calf muscles never toned on an ergo. Another year perhaps. --BozMo talk 09:03, 7 June 2010 (UTC)

Talk:Global_warming#Semi please William M. Connolley (talk) 21:25, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Go hound an "uninvolved admin" like LHvU who seems to be currently active, or put it up for semi-ing, vands don't seem all that active right now. . . dave souza, talk 21:48, 5 June 2010 (UTC) Ah, the Prologue is over. Carryon. . . dave souza, talk 21:59, 5 June 2010 (UTC)

Why are you so strenuously objecting to attempts to make the Climate Change page more precise?

I have made in the past and last night, some quite innocuous edits to the climate change page, only to be met with reverts accompanied by edict-like statements such as "I DON'T LIKE IT" as the reason for the revert. The article as it stands now, is simply not up to normal standards of scientific precision and accuracy, and omits certain relevant points such as the fact that the IPCC is a UN body (which to my mind increases its credibility greatly). While there is something to be said for making the article "accessible" to the man in the street, it should also be accurate and scientifically precise - and relevant terms such as "global warming" should be operationally defined in a manner consistent with normal scientific standards - to simply state, for example, that "Global warming is the increase in the average temperature of Earth's near-surface air and oceans since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation.", is imprecise. I admit that my edit may have been a bit long-winded, but propose that something like ""Global warming" in the scientific literature, usually refers to the increase in the average temperature of Earth's biosphere (footnote inserted to explain the term "biosphere" to those unfamiliar or uncertain with this ecological term) since the mid-20th century and its projected continuation." might be more precise and appropriate. At the very least, the reason for any reversion should be a bit more scientifically valid than "i don't like it", since this is a science-oriented topic and page.

Thanks in anticipation, Ross Mayhew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by MayFlowerNorth (talk • contribs) 16:15, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

You mean Global warming (not climate change). As for the reasons, I explained on the talk page. Don't you read talk pages? WP:IDONTLIKEIT was at attempt at humour - what I meant was, whilst I didn't like your changes they weren't clearly wrong (mostly), but a matter of personal preference. Please remember that the article is *not* a scientific paper and should not be written as such. I don't agree with your charges of imprecision, or the example you give. That is mere wording. Yours is more verbose for no extra content, and (as I said on the talk page) has been discussed before. But if you *are* looking for precision and accuracy - do you accept the criticism of your "biosphere" change? William M. Connolley (talk) 16:26, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Hope this is the proper way to reply on a talk page - haven't done so before! // Thanks for the cordial reply!! I do not generally[REDACTED] discussion pages, so i missed the humorous content.... sorry. // Not sure how far the "personal preference" principle goes in editing an online encyclopedia....// Point taken re the article not being a scientific paper - that said, i have seen some VERY scientifically oriented articles on Misplaced Pages, with advanced terminology, heavy mathematics and the like - perhaps there is a possibility of having an "accessible" global warming (i moderate a Yahoo! group on climate change, so my mistake was an honest one there...)page, and one which contains and deals with the nitty gritty scientific details which are seemingly discouraged on the page as it stands?? It's a "hot" topic both politically and scientifically these days, with quite a bit of open debate: it would be nice to have a place to bring out the "hard science" of the matter and present it on Misplaced Pages!! // Re "biosphere" not being a precise or universally agreed upon term, it is all a matter of operationally defining one's terminology: as a concept it can be defined quite well, and i think should be within a given context. // Lastly, why would it be wrong to point out that the IPCC is in fact a UN body? This is not an insignificant detail or a matter of "personal preference". Signed by MayFlowerNorth, 22:29 UTC (is there another way to "sign" one's posts??). —Preceding unsigned comment added by MayFlowerNorth (talk • contribs) 21:31, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

Last and easiest first: you sign with 4 tilde's. See the first message on your talk page :-). I didn't realise you were new, so sorry for the sarcasm. GW tends to be highly controversial - do please visit the talk page and discuss there. I think you'll find that there is plenty of hard science on the GW page. You'll also find that almost every word there is a careful compromise, so please don't assume that things that look like minor improvements haven't been thought about. For example, "UN". Harmless? In an ideal world, yes. In the real world, no. But also, irrelevant. We have wiki-links; if you want to know what IPCC is, you follow it. Also, whilst the IPCC is indeed technically a UN body it isn't really, if you see what I mean William M. Connolley (talk) 22:38, 8 June 2010 (UTC)

life

The RFC for CU/OS there is (very end of RFC) strenuous objections to temporary appointment. Both Jeske and FT2 say that CU/OS must be appointed for life. This requires a lot of trust, more trust than we have in the Prime Minister of the UK, President of the USA, Prime Minister of Japan, none of whom have life terms. I do not necessarily disagree with the life term but note that this would require a very high level of trust. Because of that 70% is not out of line. One could argue 2/3 but half is very low. I think one problem was that there were too few candidates, for example only 4 CU candidates for 4 positions. Some people may have felt there was no choice and did not support as a result. I hope there will be agreement soon. Suomi Finland 2009 (talk) 18:14, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Admins are appointed for life, subject to recall; CU/OS is the same. You either trust them or you don't. I don't trust LHVU, obviously. 70% is a random number, but it is one they fixed in advance. I'd rather go back to the on-wiki "discussion" that we still use for admins William M. Connolley (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

Global warming politics/science balance

It seems that a lot of tension at the global warming article is over how it should be balanced between science and politics. I may be completely wrong for suggesting this, but what if we split the article? We would have something like Science of global warming , Politics of global warming and a main article that gives an overview of each in summary style. If this has already been shot down then please feel free to tell me that, I just thought it might be worth getting your thoughts on a possible compromise. The Wordsmith 23:30, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

To be honest, to me this looks like a distraction. A certain group of editors has tried to water down the scientific position for years, by pushing OR, blogs, and politicos into the article. This is just a continuation of that process. Global warming is first and foremost a physical phenomenon. Of course we should describe the political debate and the various positions, but the article global warming should be primarily about just that - and not about metaphorical hot air generated by Inhofe. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:57, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Stephan. We have an existing structure; it works. Nor does it really seem to be terribly controversial: who do you see pushing for this kind of change? The recent probation requests have all been for material unrelated to the science; primarily BLP type stuff. Do you really think this is a pressing issue William M. Connolley (talk) 08:43, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Specifically though, this is an issue which has been raised by Lar in various forums. My own desire for change is limited to BLPs. --BozMo talk 10:52, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

Lar makes a point of being uninvolved, so his opinion doesn't count. I deliberately omitted mentioning him. Lets not pollute this discussion. Your own opinion is noted and I think is defensible (if wrong). Anyone else? (specifically, TW?) William M. Connolley (talk) 11:14, 11 June 2010 (UTC)

I assume Mike Hulmes book about the controversy an excellent read, besides Joachim Radkaus history of the environment for more general background. Kai F. Hünemörder diss gives aan suitable overview about international climate and environmental politics from the German perspective 1950-1973. I tend to compare Global Warming with the German Transrapid - you can go and loose yourself in technical details but all in all its just a dream with one test track in China - same for international climate mitigation policy which is nowadays as dead as night life in Bonn :). All in all Global warming and Climate Mitigation is foremost a political issue. I would insofar suggest to merge Climate change mitigation into Politics of global warming. The German WP does have an article about Klimapolitik (the latter) and one about the Controversy, but neither Climate change denial nor Politics of global warming do have an eqivalent. However de:William Connolley has one since today :) Polentario (talk) 23:57, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Other stuff

Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change

An Arbitration request in which you are involved has been opened, and is located here. Please add any evidence you wish the Arbitrators to consider to the evidence sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Evidence. You may also contribute to the case on the workshop sub-page, Misplaced Pages:Arbitration/Requests/Case/Climate change/Workshop.

Additionally, please note that for this case specific procedural guidelines have been stipulated; if you have any questions please ask. The full outline is listed on the Evidence and Workshop pages, but please adhere to the basics:

• The issues raised in the "Sock Puppet Standards of Evidence" and "Stephen Schultz and Lar" requests may be raised and addressed in evidence in this case if (but only if) they have not been resolved by other means.
• Preparation of a formal list of "parties to the case" will not be required.
• Within five days from the opening of the case, participants are asked to provide a listing of the sub-issues that they believe should be addressed in the committee's decision. This should be done in a section of the Workshop page designated for that purpose. Each issue should be set forth as a one-sentence, neutrally worded question—for example:
  • "Should User:X be sanctioned for tendentious editing on Article:Y"?
  • "Has User:Foo made personal attacks on editors of Article:Z?"
  • "Did Administrator:Bar violate the ABC policy on (date)?"
  • "Should the current community probation on Global Warming articles by modified by (suggested change)?"

The committee will not be obliged to address all the identified sub-issues in its decision, but having the questions identified should help focus the evidence and workshop proposals.

• All evidence should be posted within 15 days from the opening of the case. The drafters will seek to move the case to arbitrator workshop proposals and/or a proposed decision within a reasonable time thereafter, bearing in mind the need for the committee to examine what will presumably be a very considerable body of evidence.
• Participants are urgently requested to keep their evidence and workshop proposals as concise as reasonably possible.
• The length limitation on evidence submissions is to be enforced in a flexible manner to maximize the value of each user's evidence to the arbitrators. Users who submit overlength diatribes or repetitious presentations will be asked by the clerks to pare them. On the other hand, the word limit should preferably not be enforced in a way that hampers the reader's ability to evaluate the evidence.
• All participants are expected to abide by the general guideline for Conduct on arbitration pages, which states:
• Incivility, personal attacks, and strident rhetoric should be avoided in Arbitration as in all other areas of Misplaced Pages.
• Until this case is decided, the existing community sanctions and procedures for Climate change and Global warming articles remain in full effect, and editors on these articles are expected to be on their best behavior.
• Any arbitrator, clerk, or other uninvolved administrator is authorized to block, page-ban, or otherwise appropriately sanction any participant in this case whose conduct on the case pages departs repeatedly or severely from appropriate standards of decorum. Except in truly egregious cases, a warning will first be given with a citation to this notice. (Hopefully, it will never be necessary to invoke this paragraph.)

On behalf of the Arbitration Committee, ~ Amory (u • t • c) 00:37, 13 June 2010 (UTC)

Socks and unclean feet...

In case you or your TPWs missed it: Misplaced Pages:Sockpuppet investigations/GoRight. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:55, 14 June 2010 (UTC)

Indur M. Goklany

I presume you overlooked this in your revert, but I changed the source - it's no longer IMG's own website (which I agree is problematic), but is now sourced to Climate change: the IPCC response strategies, p. 204 - one of the IPCC's own publications. -- ChrisO (talk) 14:50, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Ah, I was about to inquire - I wasn't sure if you (or whoever added that) had actually read the thing (it is fairly rare), and if so what it said, exactly William M. Connolley (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

http://www.ipcc.ch/ipccreports/far/wg_III/ipcc_far_wg_III_full_report.pdf p 243. Interesting. Back to article talk I think William M. Connolley (talk) 15:15, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Socks

Did you know we are socks - I'm apparently your at-work account. Please tell me that you haven't all of a sudden up and moved to the east coast of the US! Hipocrite (talk) 15:18, 17 June 2010 (UTC)